a remake of a successful movie can be a tricky business at best while to remake a true classic and especially one that is veritably the definitive film of a director like alfred hitchcock and is something else again. and after watching this version of `psycho and directed by gus van sant and two things come to mind immediately represent what the point and and what on earth were they thinking. especially in light of the fact that van sant used the same screenplay (by joseph stefano and taken from the novel by robert bloch) that hitchcock used. the final result here underscores some of the finer points of the art of filmmaking represent first and that a `remake should be just that while a retooling of the original and rather than a `copy using new players while and second and that shooting in color and using more blood and being a bit more graphic does little more than detract from the impact of the film. although this was a noble effort by van sant and ironically in the end it suffers from the same flaw with which norma bates was afflicted represent the `mind of the film was divided while half was hitchcock and half van sant. and the twain and though met and shall never be bound. van sant and even working from the original script and would have been better off making his own film  all the way through  rather than attempting to duplicate exactly what hitchcock did with certain scenes. the opening shot of the movie and for instance and and especially the hower scene and arguably one of the most famous scenes in the history of the cinema. copying hitchcock and from the shots looking directly into the shower head to the one of the drain and and using the same kree. skree. skree. sound effects  even as homage to hitchcock  again and only distracted from the story. and and if you factor in the performance of william h. macy (as private eye arbogast) and you have yet another split in the psyche of the film. macy is a terrific actor  one of the best character actors in the business  and his performance here is excellent while but as good as it is and the attitude and delivery are pure david mamet (with whom he has worked many times) and and seemingly out of context with what van sant is doing. so the film winds up with a triple personality disorder represent hitchcock and van sant and mamet. i felt like i was watching `house of good will psycho games. 	as far as performances go and macy was as solid as they come and and anne heche (marion crane) did a good job of creating an original character and escaping the trap of attempting an imitation of janet leigh. the weak links were viggo mortensen (sam) and who made marion boyfriend so smarmy and unappealing it made you wonder why she had anything to do with him in the first place while and vince vaughn and who to put it as delicately as possible  was simply awful as norman bates. his whole performance was that of an actor playing a role (and not very convincingly at that) while affecting effeminate mannerisms and punctuating his speech with pontaneous bursts of maniacal laughter made his norman more of a caricature than a character and altogether unbelievable and pretentious. it gave the movie the feel of a reenactment of a `true incident you would see on a television show while it would have been entirely in keeping with the sensibility of the film to cut away from norman sitting alone in his parlor to a shot of a sober faced peter graves and intoning and `such was the mind set of norman bates on that fateful and rainy night when marion crane stepped out of her car and into his life  the supporting cast includes julianne moore (lila) and robert forster (dr. simon) and philip baker hall (sheriff al chambers) and anne haney (mrs. chambers) and chad everett (tom cassidy) and rance howard (mr. lowery) and rita wilson (caroline) and james remar (patrolman) and james legros (charlie the car dealer). if nothing else and van sant `psycho is a curiosity that goes to show that having a good director and a predominantly excellent cast and a script that is a proven commodity does not necessarily insure a success. granted and todays era of psycho babble and `american psycho and hannibal lecter have effectively taken the edge off of a character like norman bates somewhat while but there is still a singular intimacy in this particular story of the relationship between norman and his mother and his victims that will forever remain inherently disturbing and terrifying while but van sant is unable to convey that sense of dread and that throat clenching fear and with this film. if ever there was a movie made that should have been earmarked straight to video and this is it. better still and had it never been born. i rate this one negative . 
a remake of a successful movie can be a tricky business at best while to remake a true classic and especially one that is veritably the definitive film of a director like alfred hitchcock and is something else again. and after watching this version of `psycho and directed by gus van sant and two things come to mind immediately represent what the point and and what on earth were they thinking. especially in light of the fact that van sant used the same screenplay (by joseph stefano and taken from the novel by robert bloch) that hitchcock used. the final result here underscores some of the finer points of the art of filmmaking represent first and that a `remake should be just that while a retooling of the original and rather than a `copy using new players while and second and that shooting in color and using more blood and being a bit more graphic does little more than detract from the impact of the film. although this was a noble effort by van sant and ironically in the end it suffers from the same flaw with which norma bates was afflicted represent the `mind of the film was divided while half was hitchcock and half van sant. and the twain and though met and shall never be bound. van sant and even working from the original script and would have been better off making his own film  all the way through  rather than attempting to duplicate exactly what hitchcock did with certain scenes. the opening shot of the movie and for instance and and especially the hower scene and arguably one of the most famous scenes in the history of the cinema. copying hitchcock and from the shots looking directly into the shower head to the one of the drain and and using the same kree. skree. skree. sound effects  even as homage to hitchcock  again and only distracted from the story. and and if you factor in the performance of william h. macy (as private eye arbogast) and you have yet another split in the psyche of the film. macy is a terrific actor  one of the best character actors in the business  and his performance here is excellent while but as good as it is and the attitude and delivery are pure david mamet (with whom he has worked many times) and and seemingly out of context with what van sant is doing. so the film winds up with a triple personality disorder represent hitchcock and van sant and mamet. i felt like i was watching `house of good will psycho games. 	as far as performances go and macy was as solid as they come and and anne heche (marion crane) did a good job of creating an original character and escaping the trap of attempting an imitation of janet leigh. the weak links were viggo mortensen (sam) and who made marion boyfriend so smarmy and unappealing it made you wonder why she had anything to do with him in the first place while and vince vaughn and who to put it as delicately as possible  was simply awful as norman bates. his whole performance was that of an actor playing a role (and not very convincingly at that) while affecting effeminate mannerisms and punctuating his speech with pontaneous bursts of maniacal laughter made his norman more of a caricature than a character and altogether unbelievable and pretentious. it gave the movie the feel of a reenactment of a `true incident you would see on a television show while it would have been entirely in keeping with the sensibility of the film to cut away from norman sitting alone in his parlor to a shot of a sober faced peter graves and intoning and `such was the mind set of norman bates on that fateful and rainy night when marion crane stepped out of her car and into his life  the supporting cast includes julianne moore (lila) and robert forster (dr. simon) and philip baker hall (sheriff al chambers) and anne haney (mrs. chambers) and chad everett (tom cassidy) and rance howard (mr. lowery) and rita wilson (caroline) and james remar (patrolman) and james legros (charlie the car dealer). if nothing else and van sant `psycho is a curiosity that goes to show that having a good director and a predominantly excellent cast and a script that is a proven commodity does not necessarily insure a success. granted and todays era of psycho babble and `american psycho and hannibal lecter have effectively taken the edge off of a character like norman bates somewhat while but there is still a singular intimacy in this particular story of the relationship between norman and his mother and his victims that will forever remain inherently disturbing and terrifying while but van sant is unable to convey that sense of dread and that throat clenching fear and with this film. if ever there was a movie made that should have been earmarked straight to video and this is it. better still and had it never been born. i rate this one negative . ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
