Here's step two: In the comments section below, post a perspective/reaction you have not just to the film, but to the article. Your post should be thoughtful and thorough, and grammar and spelling counts. Once you've posted your comment, you're ready for step three: extra credit. You may comment on your peers' responses as much as you'd like. Feel free to agree, disagree, build, re-direct, etc. Just keep it friendly.
The film itself bored me. To me it just was not a scary movie. The movie itself was given away in the polar scene if you listed to the dialog closely. It was just about a crazy mentally ill guy who would kill because of his split personalty. The article however interviewed actors and the director himself on the film. It even described a bit of the film by reviewing it.I like it when the article would mention what roles were needed for certain scenes.
ReplyDeletePsycho is not really met to be a scary movie as it is a mystery thriller. I agree with you that it was boring in some scenes. In other scenes though, you have got to admit it does keep your attention and is pretty interesting too. Unless you predicted the ending, you have to admit the film is pretty genius in the way it ends.
DeleteI agree with both of you that some scenes were boring, but overall most of the film was very entertaining and full of suspense. And it also wasn't all just about a mentally ill guy, it was mainly focused on Marion Krane and trying to figure out what happened to her and the money.
DeleteI would have to disaggree with because I don't like old movies or films especially the ones in black and white, but the film was prettty interesting. I don't think the whole film was boring just a few scenes.
DeleteHow was Psyco spose to be a Mystery thiller. If it was then why were there creepy Music, an isane mentily ill killer, and creepy backrouns through out the movie. Also how did youfid any of the scenes intresting, there is a overkill of of backround music, black and white scenes, and the charters poorly acted there parts and were slow and cant even see the obvious. Example we got tons of reaction shots from marion but looked like they were facked and she couldent even see what was going on in the polar scene. that scene easly gave away what was going on.
DeleteIt's a mystery thriller because you have no idea how the film is going to end. I mean, you have to be sitting there thinking how is this movie going to end, right? The thriller part comes into play when there are "pop-out" moments. For example, when Abergast is killed, the film does a nice job of keeping you on your feet and wondering who exactly just killed this guy.
DeleteI enjoyed the film “Psycho” and I liked the article “Alfred Hitchcock goes Psycho.” The film wasn’t scary by any means but it held my attention and really made me think. I feel like a good movie holds your interest and makes you think and makes you question the movie throughout the entire film and “Psycho” did just that. In the article, I enjoyed how they interviewed the actors and director. I liked to hear what they thought about it and what they thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it wasn't scary, but it did have all the components of the scary movies today;Suspense, murderers, insanity.
DeleteI enjoyed the film too, but I don't think it was meant to be scary. I also agree the it holds your interest, but the film didn't make me question the movie though. The only question I had was, "Why was his mother killing people."
DeleteI agree with you jacob. I liked when they interviewed the actors and it was cool to hear what they thought about the movie and Hitchcock's ideas.
DeleteI thought that Psycho was a very interesting film that for its era would be very freaky, but for modern day would be viewed as a base for the current horror genre. I will admit that there were scenes that made me jump and others where I felt great suspense and made me feel like I was watching a horror film like Halloween, or Amityville horror. With the article I loved it because it went beyond the movie. After watching a good movie I like to check the special features for the “making of” section to see the work put into the movies. In this case it was an article that allowed me to sort of go into the mind of Hitchcock and analyze his techniques.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, I find the "making of" very interesting as well.
DeleteI'm sorry, but I don't think this film can be compared to Halloween in any way what so ever. They are different in many ways, but i felt great suspense too.
DeleteI really enjoyed the film. It didn't really scare me but the the thought that this movie inspired basically all horror movies really intrueged me, which is why I was so into the movie. Movies that "started it all" really interest me because while I watch them I like to think of all the other movies that have used the basic ideas and components. I really liked the article, because I really like knowing how movies are made, and why they chose different characters, and how they shot each scene. Most of all I like hearing/reading about the mistakes that were made along the way, and learning about the "good mistakes", those are the best because it's not what was intended, but it made the movie better. That's why I enjoyed Psycho, is because it was the pioneer of horror movies.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. It really is interesting the this film inspired all horror when the film itself isn't scary.
DeleteI have always found Psycho to be a classic. I personally call it a classic due to how it was one of the first thriller films I had seen and have since gone on to see hundreds. I have always liked the story of Psycho. Until I saw this movie, I had no idea what multi-personality disorder was. One of my favorite parts of the movie has always been the forensic psychiatrist at the end who explains the disorder as well as the entire plot. What I find interesting about the article is how they interviewed all of the actors. I always find it interesting how certain icons like Norman Bates are cast. Anthony Perkins signed on without even reading the script. It just goes to show how much confidence he had in Hitchcock, unlike Paramount.
ReplyDeleteThis was my second film with someone having split personalities. I didn't even know that someone could actually have such a crazy persinality and at the same time having another personality that's so innocent.
DeleteI liked the movie Psycho. The twist of Norman having two personalities was really interesting. According to Jasmin, “Everything was keyed to that shocking ending.” Everybody knew it was either Norman or his mother who killed Marion, but nobody knew it was both of them put together. The movie might not have been as scary as horror movies are today, but Psycho changed horror movies. The suspenseful music did create an uncomfortable feeling. Alfred Hitchcock experimented a lot with this movie, and I think it can truly be called a classic. When we re watched certain parts of the movie, everybody noticed something they didn't the first time they saw the movie. I think the article gave a great background story of the movie. I liked reading about everybody’s thoughts and facts about the movie.
ReplyDeleteYou guys don't know this, but one of my favorite movies is Wes Craven's "Scream." Not only did it restart the horror genre, but it had an amazing twist that nobody saw coming. I won't reveal anything, but I will say it is a lot like "Psycho," a movie which they reference quite often. I had no idea that "Scream" was so inspired by "Psycho," and so is the whole horror genre in general. The idea of a twist ending, an insane killer, and a body count were three major things that "Psycho" added to the horror genre. These things are now cliché and tiresome, and I think many have forgotten what the original was like. Well, now I know, and I say that the original is always best (I still like Scream better though). The idea that two people are the same person was ground-breaking for cinema, and the whole time I watched this I was thinking "That one horror movie ripped that off completely." I also enjoyed reading about the making of the movie and how such an important film that took the world by storm and even received an OSCAR nomination was filmed using a television crew and a few thousand dollars. It is interesting to think that a guy who uses so much money to make films could also use such a small amount. It really shows the heart that Hitchcock put into all of his movies.
ReplyDelete“Alfred Hitchcock Goes Psycho” is another great article about the film “Psycho” and the making of it. I thought that one of the most interesting things Stephen Rebello wrote about was how precise Hitchcock was about his films. He said that Hitchcock’s films had barely any cutting. Hitchcock preplanned every move before hand. I thought that was really cool because now movies have hours and hours of tape and footage for a scene. And they would eventually edit it down to minutes. Hitchcock is a master at limiting editing. His preplanned technique probably even saved him money as well. We know that Paramount did not give him any support for this movie, but Hitchcock definitely made it work. I really liked “Psycho”. It was awesome to see the origin of the sound in the shower stabbing (The high pitch ee ee ee). I love twist endings in thrillers or horrors and Psycho’s twist was great. Overall Psycho was a truly fantastic film.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was interesting how Hitchcock had very little editing and how it was all preplanned.
DeleteMy reaction to the film was mixed since I wasn’t sure where it was going in the beginning, but after the investigator got killed the movie really took off for me. The article points out some really interesting facts about the development of the money along with the techniques use but what interested me most was the relationship between Hitchcock and his actors. I thought that a director would be more demanding, especially a director of his stature. Instead I saw a side of Hitchcock that was quite modest especially when he tells Janet Leigh that she can do anything with the character but he will keep his camera shots the way they are. I thought that his selection of actors is very peculiar and I’d like to know what goes through his head when making those decisions. Such as, how does he envision the characters in his head and how much do they correlate with the chosen actors. I feel like psychological thrillers are really a delicate genre to direct so it’s interesting what goes on through the mind of a professional.
ReplyDeleteThe article, "Alfred Hitchcock Goes Psycho" is a great view of what happened behind the scenes and in the making of "Psycho". It shows us how Hitchcock created the whole movie with just a television crew. We see all the different possibilities of actors and actresses who could have been in this great movie. It also tells us about all of the budgeting and money made on "Psycho." The movie, in my opinion, was great. It used good film techniques both in camera angles and sound. The way that Hitchcock used the film techniques created a great sense of suspense. Overall it was a great movie in every aspect.
ReplyDeleteI liked the film. I thought it was pretty interesting. Although, at tmes at times I would get a little bored. I really liked the ending; I would have never predicted that Norman had a split personality and that he’s the one doing all the killing. The part that threw me off was when he took his mother’s corps to the basement. If he hadn’t I would have probably guess he was the killer. I thought the article “Alfred Hitchcock goes Psycho” was interesting also. What I liked most about the article was how it explained how serious Hitchcock was about making this film. He knew exactly what he wanted the characters to do and say and he went along with it.
ReplyDeleteI felt exactly the same after reading the article and also watching the film. There were some parts that i really didn't like much but at the end it all made sence and had an awesome ending. I loved the ending of the movie. Showed that he really had two personalities.
DeleteI personally enjoyed the film. It was very interesting and a bit creepy. Horror films from this era probably wouldn't be like this, but it was an interesting twist in my opinion. I also thought it was cool how he planned almost every single detail beforehand because now they don't do it as much. Overall, I thought it was a pretty good film.
ReplyDeleteI personally liked the film alot because it was pretty interesting. Although some parts were slow the ending was so unexpected. Hitchcock spends so much time on building the story around Marian and finding her, and making everyone think the mother was the killer. The whole movie i was just waiting to see the mother, what she looked like and turns out she wasnt even alive. The article explains how serious hitchcock is about his films and how everything must be perfect and i can see why because this film was very good.
ReplyDeleteI love the film a lot because it was very intense and was really interesting. I really couldn't tell what was going to happen in the nest scene. I love how the story was told in the movie too, because they all made it seem like the mother was there and she was the killer for all these crimes. What i loved about the article was that they all really got into the idea of makking this film and how they were so positive that the movie was going to make it out in the industry.
ReplyDeleteBoth times that I have watched this film, I was taken aback by the main character (Marion, Janet Leigh). This is because in such an anticipated thriller/horror movie, one always expects much different than they receive. While reading the article, I stumbled across the following... "Hitchcock surprised some Hollywood observers by signing instead perky, reliable, 32-year-old Janet Leigh". I can totally attest to this! Every time I see Janet Leigh, I'm expecting to see her in a roaring 20's synchronized swimming black and white movie... It's shocking. But I love that her natural innocence is always prevalent no matter what role she is playing in the movie, victim or perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteI thought the movie Psycho was a solid flick. What made it so interesting to me was how Alfred Hitchcock took this movie into his own hands, despite the negativity from film productions studios. The article title “Alfred Hitchcock goes Psycho” really said it all, it summed up that Hitchcock wasn’t going to make the movie Psycho the way film directors had been doing it for years. He was going to create this film his way, and on his budget. I also thought it was interesting the way Hitchcock made up his cast. He wasn’t looking for the big headliner actors that would eventually steal the show. He was looking for a specific actor/actress that fit the part to the point. Hitchcock and the Actors in Psycho took a gamble but despite doubts Alfred Hitchcock combines risk taking, creative brilliance and confidence to create the box office hit.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this article, I found it interesting how much detail Hitchcock put into the movie. He was a control freak in some aspects, but that is why the film is great. He had a vision and knew exactly what he wanted and what the audience wanted. I was surprised to read how formal the set was with crew members wearing ties and jackets. I thought it was interesting to hear how Perkins developed the character Norman and added more to the script to enhance the eerie effect Norman was supposed to have on the audience. In all i don't think this film would have been so well done and a classic if Hitchcock did not direct it.
ReplyDelete