See more Side-by-Sides at mattskuta.com/sbs/ Comment to help me choose my next side-by-side: The Great Gatsby (1974/2013) Open Your Eyes (1997)/Vanilla Sky (2001) Romeo and Juliet (1936/1968/1996/2013) Animal Farm (1954/1999) The BFG (1989/2016) Avatar: The Last Airbender(2003)/The Last Airbender (2010) Cinderella (1950/2015) Clash of the Titans (1981/2010) Nosferatu (1922)/Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) The Shining (1980/1997) Ghost in the Shell (1995/2017)

1998 version looks like a student movie

The original Norman is much more disturbing than the one in the remake...

1:50 is fascinating because you can tell it’s the exact same location 38 years apart. It’s amazing how little it changed.

Me: "Mom can I have Psycho" Mom: "We have Psycho at home" Psycho at home: 1998 version

I will never understand why they cast Vince Vaughn as Norman.

Friend: Did you do the homework? Me: No I forgot it, can I copy yours Friend: Sure, but make sure to don't do it exactly the same Me:

This case shows how execution is just as important as intent. Van Sant used the exact same script, music, shots and several of the same filming locations as Hitchcock, and simply did a worse job.

The B&W was on purpose in the original Psycho. Hitchcock used it to create a special vibe. The coloured version is not even half as frightening.

14:14 you can see the difference between amature acting and legendary acting. And that scene's lighting is so powerfull (1960).. The other one is flat lighting in an intense scene!

It's basically a shot for shot remake of the original

The scariest thing about Norman in the original is he has a kind face; there's no way anyone would suspect that he's a monster.

Casting this guy as Norman Bates is like casting Jack Black as Luke Skywalker Edit 2021: okay now that I think about it that would be cool

1960's much better

The original just looks better in every way. Better looking actors too. Norman Bates in the original actually looks like a shifty guy.

The “remake” had no imagination or originality at all. Just a modern playback of the original. The director went out of his way to make it identical which is ridiculous.

No one will ever outdo the original. It is perfect the way it is. The remake does nothing new it is the same exact thing only in color but with worse acting

Like Roger Ebert said, the 1998 version served as nothing more than an experiment in shot-for-shot remakes

If you pause at 14:36 and look at the original, you can see Norman smiling and behind him is a faded picture of his mother. That’s incredible what they did

The 1998 version just feels wrong.

One of the issues is that it isn't shot for shot. Van Sant clearly starts changing things heavily after the shower scene. The blocking is also different from the beginning. In each scene, either the actors are being directed to awkwardly mimic the previous performances or they're doing something totally different that misses the point of the shot the remake is mimicking. This movie is very "uncanny valley" for anyone that's seen the original; everything is the same, but wrong. Though it would be cruel, it would be worthwhile for someone who's never seen the original to watch the remake first and share what they think. Vaughn is also too big and "hip serial killer" looking. Vaughn is 6'5" or so and Mortensen is maybe 5'10". There's a shot in the original where Loomis "looms" over Norman that the remake struggles to fake.

One thing the original conveys to me is how human Janet Leigh looks as she’s initially testing the shower water and just thrilled to be scrubbing herself after the day she’s had. It’s very genuine. Annne Heche’s looks like acting and direction.

Nothing compares to Hitch's gem . 1960 's : it still recreates how enjoyable and scary shadows could be. 1998's : nothing, except for Viggo's lovely body is for me memorable to remember.!

Just shows you can't improve upon perfection, you can only try to copy it.

The original will always be the best.

The one from 1960 is simply an incomparable jewel.

Did Psycho need a remake? No. Did we want a remake? Definitely not.

"Look how they masacred my boy" -Vito corleone

I can't wait to see the 2036 remake.

Love how you can literally watch this with no dialogue and still understand everything that is happening. Never should of remade this masterpiece.

There's something about the new one that just makes it look unprofessional...

Moral of this video : Never ever remake an Alfred Hitchcock movie, you'll never capture his vision on screen

It’s modern day 1998 but everyone is dressed like they’re in the 60’s. Ok

In Roger Ebert’s review " The most dramatic difference between Psycho(1960) and Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot remake is the addition of masturbation scene", literally cracks me up. And also the way Anthony Perkins did facial expressions in the final scene always frightens me to death. But I cannot see such expressions in the remake.

Disney did the same with The Lion King

thank god anthony perkins wasn’t around to see this remake

The original is just not only better than the remake but was also ahead of it's time!

comparing these two films and one learns multitudes about narrative film making: framing, pacing, casting, acting, economy, lighting, sound

Could imagine how disappointed Hitchcock would've been if he was alive and see that someone ruined his masterpiece by doing a unnecessary shot for shot remake

Old is always gold@ 1960 actors was too best

I don’t really get the point of the new one. The original is one of the best films to ever be made, what were they hoping to achieve?

14:31 Sorry, but the original is unbeatable, the remake looks like a casting audition

The clear winners in this side-by-side comparison: Bernard Herrmann . . . and Matt Skuta's patient and laborious editing. 👏

It's an accurate recreation but everything is just much worse in the remake, there's no point to watching this version, it's basically a bad copycat.

The 1998 version was like watching an Interdimensional Cable version of the original Psycho.

I consider the remake an interesting experiment, to put on a modern spin while at the same time being faithful to the story...but Vince Vaughn was definitely a miscasting. Anne Heche was surprisingly adequate but she pales by comparison to Janet Leigh. Heche did not drew you in and did not make you invest in her character as much as Leigh did. I also like the re-imagining of Lila by Julianne Moore. But overall, the shot by shot comparison only highlight the remake's shortcomings.

I'm a HUGE Hitchcock fan, but I respect the remake. You go to see the same play with different actors. You go to see the same ballet with different dancers and the same opera with different singers. It's always interesting to see what an individual artist does with a role.

Side-by-side comparisons are amazing. Thank you for doing this one!!!! It has always festered in my mind....to see a side-by-side comparison of Psycho and the remake. This video is a visual eyegasm

1998 shower scene may be the worst thing I’ve ever seen

Still don't understand why we needed the 98' version.

This remake is the most pointless thing since trying to play E.T atari

Even the shower curtain is better in the original.

I love all the performances in the remake except the two leads. But, sadly, it is the two leads that make or break the film. Viggo Mortensen, Rita Wilson, William H. Macy all give fun performances that are great updates to their respective characters. Robert Forster makes the psychoanalysis scene more tolerable by speaking less dramatically (and faster). Anne Heche, however, plays it a bit "too loose." It looks like her character is looking for trouble, whereas Janet Leigh plays it very cautious and careful, making her death more shocking. And Vince Vaughn doesn't work for me at all. But he can probably be forgiven because Anthony Perkin's performance is damn near irreplaceable. It's also sad that two of my favorite filmmakers, Gus Van Sant and Christopher Doyle, were involved in this. Still, I don't object anyone attempting this. And I wonder what someone like Brian De Palma would do if he were tasked with this.

Danny Elfman who composed for the film advised to Gus Van Sant, the director about the negative reviews it might receive but he still felt confident about remaking it, anyway.

1998 should’ve tried to make it more of an adaptation than a remake, like do some things from the book that the 60s movie didn’t do. I think we probably would have gotten a better movie, what hurts the 90s version is that it doesn’t change anything and the acting isn’t as good.

Ok, so Anne Heche carried around a parasol at the car dealership! That was the standout difference! :-P

I know this probably isn’t a huge deal but I always found it funny that Janet Leigh dresses in a button up turtle neck shirt with a proper demeanor after stealing the money while Anne Heche looks like she’s heading for a Florida cruise ship. The original is more ironic in that department and it suits the tone of the movie better as a result.

Alfred Hitchcock's version all the way.

So something I just realized. In the 1960 version, Marion stole $40,000. Assuming all $100 bills, that stack should be about 1.7 inches thick. In the 1998 version, Marion stole $400,000, which should be about 17 inches thick. A bit big for one small envelope.

Kudos. This comparison is exquisite & the score is right on key: masterful music. I will always stand by Alfred Hitchcock's classic; it was, by far, much more superior than anything a remake could have ever offered.

This is the best horror of all time it won’t ever be matched it’s really the one that starts it all

it's amazing how the director of the remake made those good actors act so bad on the iconic scenes to the point that they could be starring in a porno

The 98 Norman looks like a friend's uncle at a party... 60 Norman looks so much more menacing... Not to mention that camera zoom in the final scene. So much more creepy and iconic...

Thanks for this - I loved both versions - this is a great watch and saved to my favourites

Thank God Hitchcock didn't get to see this movie.

Stop right there. In the first place the 1998 one should have never been made.

5:32 the moment you’ve been waiting for

This film was an interesting experiment. Stage plays are remade all the time. For example, the cast in the US version of Hamilton, isn’t the same as the version in the UK or Australia. But it’s the same show, same choreography, same script. They all work, which is strange. I think the cast are pretty good, but Vince Vaughan is miscast. He looks like he could kill you. I guess where The Bates Motel went right, is they took the idea and did their own thing with it. What’s interesting though, is 22 years later and Disney is absolutely killing it at the box office with shot-for-shot remakes

Norman Bates is forever and ever and ever Anthony Perkins ... I don't understand why the director tried on making an exact copy of such a MASTERPIECE !!

This is literally a frame by frame remake! What's the point on remaking it?

Where did the makers of 1998 version got the Audacity to recreate such a Masterpiece!

I didnt even know there's 1998 version until now

I was watching this movie today in my film class and it was amazing

The original is "practically perfect in every way" ♥️

I think is a great job Trying to do the same as the 60's version but making a 90's color movie. For me... Excellent R.I.P. And Heche.

Classic 1960 will never be topped

1960 version is true horror/thriller 1998 version is more like a dark comedy Vince Vaughn is more goofy looking, whereas Anthony Perkins is just plain creepy...

Psycho (1960): Diamond😍 Psycho (1998): Garbage😣

Love the addition of the psycho theme to the shower scene comparison.

This is the perfect example of the statement “don’t fuck with with original”. The sad thing is there were some fairly big names in this remake which is probably why it was given the green light, along with a well-known director. However, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should 😳😑

I prefer the original version because I was in love of Anthony Perkins :)

Anne Heche, R.I.P.

Excellent work Thank you

*_Psycho Path: The Making of Psycho 1998_* is (as of this post) on KZfaq and was a part of the DVD extras for Psycho 1998. In it, Gus Van Sant talks about how silent films, particularly those viewed during the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, showed the actors running about in this sped-up, comical fashion. That is because the original equipment they were meant to be played back (screened) on no longer exists! (With modern technology, it's now likely that many of those movies can be digitally processed to make them appear to be the correct speed.) *He said that they are a lost form of art and he suggested that black-and-white films considered classic masterpieces are becoming a lost art because they are shunned by younger audiences for lack of color! Therefore his intention with his remake was to use virtually the same techniques that Hitchcock used in order to introduce his style of filmmaking to a younger audience who normally don't watch B&W films. That's it.*

The bad acting stands out. Marion doesn't seem dead in the remake.

RIP Anne Heche.

8:13 en ese momento nos damos cuenta (por su mala actuación) que es lo que está pasando perfectamente. Y en la versión de 1960 aún mantiene esa intensa intriga de saber que ES LO QUE ESTA PASANDO!!!

I'e never seen 1998's version before... Looks like a one-hit-wonder slasher movie more than a Hitchcock legend

Original movie in 1960 is better...wt a actress and actors that time....and making was so good ..and amazing quality of film in black white in 1960....but new remake is worst and waste...I think they must not do remake of that film ....it's a insult .....

Incidentally, I'm nearly 100% certain that I saw the '98 shower scene as a child when I (or one of my family members) was flipping through channels, & I was so terrified & traumatized by it, I was too scared to even watch the original shower scene when I became a grownup...until a few years ago. And not only that, but I'm equally certain that watching that scene (from '98) gave me a youth-long aversion to showers. Guess I should've been sent to the dry cleaners, huh? XD

Even though Alfred Hitchcocks psycho 1960 will always be my favorite but I like how you added both of Alfred's and Gus's side by side that was awesome to watch looking forward to seeing more thank you

5:41 Fun Fact: In the original Psycho for the blood in the shower scene they used chocolate sauce. (Since it’s a black and white movie you couldn’t tell)

The actress of 1998 remind me Rosemary.

I like how in the remake there is more money in the envelope. That must be due to inflation.

Both are great

Terrific! Thx for doing this! Mother oh God mother, blood, blood!

1960s psycho is the best. According to me 💙

I didn't know there was a remake, until now, lol.

Best Norman Bates 1). Anthony Perkins Psycho I-IV 2). Freddie Highmore Bates Motel 3). Henry Thomas Psycho IV 4). Vince Vaughn Remake

The place where Marion pulls over for the night and woken by the policeman the next day is the exact same location in both films.. I found that interesting hehe