A Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually Worked

A Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually Worked

Quick Links

  • Psycho II Explores Norman Bate’s Life 22 Years After the Original Film
  • Psycho II’s Twists and Turns Make It Stand Out
  • The Reception and Box Office of Psycho II

As a cinephile who’s been around the block a few times and has watched my fair share of sequels that didn’t quite hit the mark, let me tell you that Psycho II is an exception to the rule. Having grown up on the original Hitchcock classic, I was skeptical when I first heard about this sequel. But boy, was I wrong!


In today’s era, it might surprise you to know that sequels were once scarce. It wasn’t until the early ’80s that they started appearing more frequently, and even then, studios had reservations about creating them, especially for their iconic films. One movie that seemed unthinkable to have a sequel was Alfred Hitchcock’s chilling horror masterpiece from the 1960s, Psycho.

Back in 1982, the notion of creating a sequel to what is widely regarded as one of cinema’s greatest masterpieces left me puzzled. Hitchcock was no longer with us in 1980, and convincing Anthony Perkins, our beloved Norman Bates, to return wasn’t going to be a walk in the park. In fact, it seemed we were teetering on the edge of a made-for-TV production, considering a potential recast if Perkins chose not to participate. Yet, against all odds, Psycho II graced our movie screens in June 1983. Although it didn’t quite match the critical acclaim of its predecessor, this sequel was hailed as a commendable continuation and has earned even more appreciation over the years since its initial release.

Psycho II Explores Norman Bate’s Life 22 Years After the Original Film

A Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually Worked

In the upcoming sequel, I delve into the intriguing question: Can a man who was once deeply disturbed and responsible for heinous crimes find redemption and re-enter society peacefully? This tale unfolds 22 years after Norman Bates (played by Perkins) succumbed to madness at the Bates Motel, leaving a trail of bodies behind. Now, after confinement in a mental institution, Norman is granted permission to return home to the Bates Motel and attempt a normal life. Yet, his past quickly resurfaces as new murders occur, leaving us questioning whether Norman has lost his sanity once more or if an unseen culprit is framing him for the crimes.

Originally, Psycho II was planned as a television movie due to some apprehension about its success, given its controversial nature and the difficulty in securing Anthony Perkins, who played Norman Bates in the original film. The story of Norman’s recovery would have been less convincing without Perkins’ involvement, but he initially declined the project. Despite the significant impact that playing Norman had on Perkins’ career, it also limited his opportunities as he was often stereotyped and offered only offbeat or unusual roles due to the strong association with this character.

It took some time for the actor to fully accept and understand how the role shaped his identity. If Perkins didn’t change his mind, another actor (Christopher Walken) was considered as a possible replacement. However, after reading the script written by Holland, Perkins agreed to return because Norman’s story was the main focus. This decision allowed the production to transition from a cable TV project to a big-screen movie, making it easier for all other aspects to fall into place.

In the case of “Psycho II,” a potential advantage lies in the fact that people might not expect much from it. Although Universal decided to produce the movie, there was no compelling reason for its creation. No one demanded a sequel to “Psycho,” so the creators had to persuade viewers that there was more to this story worth telling. Additionally, it’s beneficial that Franklin and his team didn’t strive to mimic Hitchcock, as such an attempt would have been extremely challenging.

The movie pays tribute to Hitchcock in certain shots, such as when his shadow appears in a scene or the final image that served as the film’s poster art, showing Norman standing on the steps outside “mother’s” house at night. However, unlike Hitchcock’s work, this film leans more towards the slasher genre, which was becoming popular during that time, but with a slightly deeper touch. Compared to its predecessor, this movie is much gorier, though it might seem relatively tame compared to ’80s standards. The film also has a darkly humorous tone, a feature that was largely missing in Hitchcock’s classic. It may be hard not to chuckle when Norman uses a giant butcher knife just to spread mayo on a sandwich or when the camera focuses on small objects whenever Norman seems to be losing his composure.

Psycho II’s Twists and Turns Make It Stand Out

A Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually Worked

It’s the twists and turns that elevate Psycho II to a much higher level. Although the film was released in 1983, and spoilers can be found everywhere, they won’t be revealed here because half of the fun is watching them play out for the first time. The movie does a good job of making Norman and the audience believe he’s regressing to his old ways as more violence begins to surround him, but Perkins’ performance also makes the audience want to believe in him. He brings a vulnerability to the role, similar to what he did the first time around, making him weirdly likable and merely a victim of the events around him. It’s a fine line to walk, and Perkins does it masterfully.

In a straightforward and engaging manner: Norman appears to be leading an ordinary existence, yet this authenticity leaves one doubting the situation’s truth. There are hints that he might be on the verge of mental instability once more, but certain events will cause the audience to dismiss their discomfort. This is particularly noticeable in his interactions with Mary from Tilly’s family, a relationship characterized by unexpected twists but often feels very genuine. Regardless of her initial reasons for involving herself in Norman’s life, she develops strong feelings for him, making the plot even more complex as the film approaches its thrilling yet entertaining climax.

It’s said that Perkins and Tilly may have had issues during filming, yet their scenes together are among the movie’s most memorable. The ending twist is an ingenious touch, making it a scene that I imagine would have been thrilling to witness in theaters when the movie first came out.

The Reception and Box Office of Psycho II

A Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually WorkedA Psycho Sequel Was a Recipe for Disaster, but It Actually Worked

1983 saw the release of “Psycho II” on June 3rd, which proved to be a box office sensation, finishing second only to “Return of the Jedi” during its debut weekend with an impressive opening of $8.3 million. In the end, the movie garnered $34 million against a production budget of just $5 million. It’s likely that public curiosity contributed significantly to its success, as Universal Pictures initially had doubts about proceeding with the project. Given the popularity of slasher icons like Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees at the time, Norman Bates’ return for a brief spell on the throne was certainly a welcome surprise.

Initially, responses to the movie upon its premiere were varied, but the filmmakers had anticipated this reaction due to the challenging task of creating a sequel for the iconic “Psycho”. Unsurprisingly, criticism came pouring in from critics, as expected. However, the most significant endorsement arrived from director Quentin Tarantino, who expressed his preference for the sequel over the original film. This might appear astonishing to some, but it aligns perfectly with Tarantino’s unique style. In 2005, when discussing the sequel, Tarantino mentioned that he had always been a fervent admirer of “Psycho II”, crediting director Richard Franklin, who had previously worked on films like “Road Games” and “Patrick”. According to Tarantino, Universal hired Franklin for “Psycho II” as it was a significant undertaking. Moreover, he highly praised Anthony Perkins’ performance in the sequel, claiming it was his finest work.

Furthermore, I believe that Anthony Perkins’ performance in Psycho II is unparalleled. His portrayal of Norman Bates truly captivated me, which is quite unusual given the character’s disturbing nature.

Previous critiques have praised the movie for its dark wit and unexpected turns. Kim Newman from Empire remarked that the most cleverly morbid joke lies in the fact that everyone wants Norman to be insane, and the semblance of normalcy can only return if he has his mother’s mummy in the window, ready to kill once more. Film analyst John Kenneth Muir acknowledged the film’s more human elements and its sincere portrayal of Norman, stating it as a “remarkable film on its own strengths.

Before it became trendy, Psycho II was a daring follow-up to an iconic original, understanding that imitation wouldn’t do justice but instead carving its unique path. On the surface, Psycho II seemed destined for failure, yet it surpasses all expectations and proves itself as a remarkable sequel, making it an intriguing choice for your chilling entertainment this Halloween season. You can stream Psycho II on Netflix right now.

Read More

Sorry. No data so far.

2024-11-01 06:02