It can be a hard thing to review an iconic film like Alfred Hitchcock classic Psycho without saying things that countless others have already said. It’s a film that has been studied backwards and forwards and even analysed to death. It’s a renowned classic and is regarded as a masterpiece of cinema. As such this will be a hard film for me to review with fresh insights; I will never the less give honest opinions on the film and my feelings of it.

Psycho works well to show why Hitchcock himself was well know for suspense, while fairly simple from a narrative sense with a pretty back plot, I find it puts more effort into establish element that lie underneath the surface, this is most present with the character Norman Bates himself. While the shocking plot twist of him being revealed as the killed has for a very long time lost its impact being that everyone now knows, what is most clever are the subtle hints the film presents along the way which things like his seemingly unhealthy obsession with taxidermy as a hobby and comparing his mother to one of his stuffed birds, clever moments like that which foreshadow events ahead. Another thing which is odd yet effective is the setup of the narrative, we spend first half of the film….we are actually all this time lead to believe her to be the lead character of the film before seeing her killed off around the half time mark in middle during the iconic shower sequence. While this may hold little surprise now it must have been pretty shocking in cinema during 1960 and if give the film a feeling that no character in this film is truly safe.

In many ways however I honestly feel the iconic nature of the films plot and imagery hurt it more today then anything else. Don’t get me wrong because Psycho still a well made film that earns its title as a classic; however the film really doesn’t hold any surprises anymore to new viewers. It’s unless you’ve been ignoring pop culture references over the last 5 decades then you should know much of what happens and how. Another issue comes from the second half of the film because once the character of Mary Crane is killed off; the characters that followed to the Bates Motel just aren’t all that fleshed out……this is particularly true for Lila Crane (who doesn’t really get developed as a character until the sequel) and Sam Loomis. Lastly I feel the psychiatrist at the end of the film doesn’t hold up well at all, I dunno how well known the idea of split personalities was to the viewing audience back in 1960 but now it’s a simple concept that feels over explained to the point of being borderline condescending.

With all that said, Psycho is still a brilliant horror film that was landmark for the genre. Even without the surprises the film is still a treat to watch for its craft and the atmosphere through out, its iconic imagery and soundtrack still make for an impressive (if by today’s standards tame) spectacle and remains a genre classic. It’s only a shame that I could have never seen the film back in the day when impact of the film would have been at its most shocking.

See you all next time when I review its 1983 sequel Psycho II!