FA+
Shop
Psycho IV: The Begining (1990) - Review
12 years ago
Ahhh prequels, the place horror franchises go to die. Not that I have a predisposition against the idea of a series having a prequel, but generally when a horror franchise does this it’s a sign that they have no ideas left. Couple this with the fact that this movie was made for cable television, it’s pretty obvious that this was Psycho’s last gasp for a series that started with one of cinema’s most iconic films. Truly this was a sad fall from grace, particularly given where the series started from……though I guess in a way its better it ended here before they decided to make Psycho V: Norman Bates in Space!
This film starts with a radio talk show of which the topic of the day would be matricide (someone who kills their own mother) with special guest Dr. Richmond (the psychiatrist from the end of the first film, though now played by a completely different person). As fate would have it that Norman Bates (once again played by a now beginning to look sickly Anthony Perkins) who decides that now would be a good time to call into the show and talk about the events that lead him to kill his abusive mother, some unrelated killings as a teenager that seem to be added in to up very small body count, and announce that he plans to kill is own pregnant wife so that his crazy genes don’t live on in his child.
To not beat about the bush, this is a terrible film and precious little works. This is something of a retcon sequel/prequel that seems contract nearly all the established facts presented in the first 3 films, remember the whole Ms. Spool plot arc from the 2nd and 3rd films now seems to no longer exist, the means of Norman’s father’s death is changed, the age Norman killed his mother is changed, when the hotel was made was changed……now I could maybe see getting the facts wrong for the sequels but given that this was by the screenwriter of the original it astounds me how little care he puts into starting faith to his own work. The film also raises questions that are truly perplexing like how come his out again after only 4 years? Why would his wife (a psychiatrist from the mental home Norman attended) marry him, let alone see him fit for raising a child…..is she mad herself? Also other then just the sheer gimmickyness of the talk radio plot, it seems really out of character for Norman Bates to call in…this also seems like it wastes Perkins as an actor as for most of the film his just standing and talking on a phone. The casting too didn’t seem to work, while Henry Tomas is a fine actor he fails to channel Perkins as a young Bates and Olivia Hussey is flat out terrible as Norma Bates…..why would that character have a British accent? The film displays a very shallow sex = death ideal to Norman’s psychology that just feels empty and insincere. Last the ending, the end of the film features a pathetic scene in which Norman is trying to escape the burning down Bates home while being attacked by the ghosts of past victims (only ones from this movie)…..this sequence is actually embarrassing to watch.
So what was good? Well even though Perkins seemed less enthused this time around he did still put in some nice acting touches. Given the low budget telemovie nature of this film it’s not badly shot all things considered, it certainly looks like professionally made if nothing else. Lastly while the ending was horrible, the fake burning down of the Bates home was actually surprisingly convincing, which is more praise of some of the technical talent then anything else.
To put it bluntly I hated this film and I really only began to scratch the surface of what was wrong with it. The 90’s would not be kind to the Psycho series as only 2 short years after this movie Anthony Perkins passed away from the effects of AIDS. To add further insult to injury Psycho it self would be remade poorly scene by scene in 1998, place Vince Vaughn in the role of Norman Bate (which works about as well as you’d expect). It’s also just kinda depressing to see such an iconic character go out on such a sour note.
This film starts with a radio talk show of which the topic of the day would be matricide (someone who kills their own mother) with special guest Dr. Richmond (the psychiatrist from the end of the first film, though now played by a completely different person). As fate would have it that Norman Bates (once again played by a now beginning to look sickly Anthony Perkins) who decides that now would be a good time to call into the show and talk about the events that lead him to kill his abusive mother, some unrelated killings as a teenager that seem to be added in to up very small body count, and announce that he plans to kill is own pregnant wife so that his crazy genes don’t live on in his child.
To not beat about the bush, this is a terrible film and precious little works. This is something of a retcon sequel/prequel that seems contract nearly all the established facts presented in the first 3 films, remember the whole Ms. Spool plot arc from the 2nd and 3rd films now seems to no longer exist, the means of Norman’s father’s death is changed, the age Norman killed his mother is changed, when the hotel was made was changed……now I could maybe see getting the facts wrong for the sequels but given that this was by the screenwriter of the original it astounds me how little care he puts into starting faith to his own work. The film also raises questions that are truly perplexing like how come his out again after only 4 years? Why would his wife (a psychiatrist from the mental home Norman attended) marry him, let alone see him fit for raising a child…..is she mad herself? Also other then just the sheer gimmickyness of the talk radio plot, it seems really out of character for Norman Bates to call in…this also seems like it wastes Perkins as an actor as for most of the film his just standing and talking on a phone. The casting too didn’t seem to work, while Henry Tomas is a fine actor he fails to channel Perkins as a young Bates and Olivia Hussey is flat out terrible as Norma Bates…..why would that character have a British accent? The film displays a very shallow sex = death ideal to Norman’s psychology that just feels empty and insincere. Last the ending, the end of the film features a pathetic scene in which Norman is trying to escape the burning down Bates home while being attacked by the ghosts of past victims (only ones from this movie)…..this sequence is actually embarrassing to watch.
So what was good? Well even though Perkins seemed less enthused this time around he did still put in some nice acting touches. Given the low budget telemovie nature of this film it’s not badly shot all things considered, it certainly looks like professionally made if nothing else. Lastly while the ending was horrible, the fake burning down of the Bates home was actually surprisingly convincing, which is more praise of some of the technical talent then anything else.
To put it bluntly I hated this film and I really only began to scratch the surface of what was wrong with it. The 90’s would not be kind to the Psycho series as only 2 short years after this movie Anthony Perkins passed away from the effects of AIDS. To add further insult to injury Psycho it self would be remade poorly scene by scene in 1998, place Vince Vaughn in the role of Norman Bate (which works about as well as you’d expect). It’s also just kinda depressing to see such an iconic character go out on such a sour note.
