this be and per se and an above average film but why in the name of bog be it make . it impossible to treat it a a thing unto itself because it be an almost shot for shot remake of an alfred hitchcock classic of 1960. you can not watch it without the 1960 film nudge into your consciousness . what do the word credit mean . how can we credit van sandt and his associate with anything except decide to use different actor and slightly different set and and color . anne heche be attractive but lacks janet leigh stolid determination to become a respectable middle class woman . and heche be young than leigh and who bring to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down and the desperation of a woman face forty . and heche doesn not project anxiety the way leigh do . the scene with the chp officer look in her car window illustrate the weakness in the role . in the original and the officer asks and be there something wrong . leigh represent of course not . be i acting a if something be wrong . the officer hesitate before reply represent well and frankly and yes . that exchange be omit from the remake for the simple reason that heche isn not nervous enough . the bad change and without a doubt and be the substitution of vince vaughn for anthony perkins . it may not be vaughn fault . who could match perkins in the role . perkins be twitchy and bird like and long necked and cloak in an externally charm exterior that mask an inner vacuum . his every move ( eat candy corn and with his adam apple bobbing ) and every utterance and the faint laugh and the arid chuckle and be spot on . he just can not be improve upon . vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short haired beefy guy who be just discharge a a lance corporal from the u. s. army . to suggest his psychosis all he can do be superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appear otherwise a perfectly normal norman in speech and manner . ( unlike the original norman and vaughn doesn not even stumble over the word fallacy because it resemble phallus . ) he could be just hang around the motel wait to hear about his application for a football scholarship to ucla . the direction deserve a few comment . i do not see what it add to the story when we see norman masturbate while peep in on anne heche . i do not object to it . i wonder why it there and just a i wonder why the rest of the movie be there . and and i suppose in order to impress u with how much color add to the visual experience and van sant seem to have miss a bit of hitchcock more subtle stuff . heche be give underwear of all different color green and pink and orange and and mango . be that a color . if so and what the hell color be it . never mind . the point be that in the original and when the travel camera first peek through the window of the phoenix hotel it capture janet leigh in bed wear a pure white half slip and a white bra . later and after she have steal the money and we see her in her underwear again this time both her slip and bra be black . tis a small thing and but hitch own . at that and the idea of shoot in color might not have be bad except that the black and white shooting of the original be superb . the color and odd lighting effect in this version turn the ordinary and dull and and subliminally ominous motel into something that look like it belong in the seedy part of la vega . most of all and the 1960 film be shock in more way than one . i can remember see it in a drive in in san diego and star aghast at the screen when it become clear that the central character be actually dead half way through the movie . nothing like it have ever be do before . that murder in the shower and in both movie and be a big improvement over robert bloch original novel and by the way and in which the author write something like and the murderer then enter the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife . i be not make that up . well and not entirely . even here and van sant movie give u excess . there be more blood and more bare flesh . and where hitchcock close in first on the blood circle the bathtub drain and dissolve to marian blankly open eye and then pull the camera back slowly to reveal her face and he rotate his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical and give the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder and but a dizzying disbelief . van sant doesn not tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degree a hitchcock do . he practically twirl it on it axis . it would not do to call this a bow to hitchcock because it not . it a pecuniary plundering of hitchcock material ( already rip off in psycho i and ii and iii and iv and and psycho represent the beginning year and and come into my parlor represent mrs. bat revenge and and hand me that knife and would you . represent the true story of norman bates . ) a rehashing of and grind away at truly original stuff and a crumenal act if not a criminal one . and that not to mention the many homage in other film and especially the french and such a the notorious ocean of boredom scene between marcel brulee and jeanne gateau in the much admire la mere de la nuit . ( maybe i would better add that that last sentence be a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critic . and when a chicken gut grind corn and it a crumenal act . i would not go on except to say these gag and shabby a they be and be more fun than the movie . ) so who be it make for . i would have to guess . kid who be too young to know about the original and who do not like movie in black and white . kid who be hop to see another ordinary slasher movie . chimpanzee .