Psycho III


Action / Horror / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 58%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 30%
IMDb Rating 5.3 10 10512


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 23,428 times
October 09, 2013 at 12:07 PM


Jeff Fahey as Duane
Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates
Diana Scarwid as Maureen
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
754.41 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 33 min
P/S 2 / 7
1.44 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 33 min
P/S 1 / 3

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird 6 / 10

Norman Bates back to normal?

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.

Before seeing either of the sequels, there was the feeling of "what was the point? The 1960 film was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel let alone three as well as a television film and a remake". Actually found myself very pleasantly surprised by 'Psycho II', and despite reviews being very, very mixed (leaning towards the negative) 'Psycho III' was also better than anticipated. The previous two films are superior from personal opinion but there are sequels out there that disgrace their originals far more than this does.

'Psycho III' could have been better certainly. The nudity was overused and not necessary, and while the gore is suitably shocking and handled more tastefully it also could have been used less. The religious elements added absolutely nothing and to me they actually confused and muddled the story.

Some of the dialogue is laughably cheesy and rambles, Norman Bates' also fairly repetitive.

However, 'Psycho III' has a huge amount to like. It once again boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Carter Burwell's score is very haunting and in its best parts sends chills down the spine.

The film, as mentioned, is directed by none other by Norman Bates himself Anthony Perkins. His direction is assured and more than capable without being mind-blowing. The story is paced neatly and intrigues throughout with some nods to the original 'Psycho', an opening reminiscent of 'Vertigo', some clever darkly wicked humour and some suitably creepy and suspenseful set-pieces, the phone booth scene coming very close to rivalling the original's iconic shower scene in terrifying horror. Personally didn't think it was that melodramatic or excessive, and that only the religious elements and nudity had an air of vulgarity.

It's not just Perkins who gives an as expected wonderful performance in his most famous role, and he has not lost any of what made the performance so unforgettable before. Diana Scarwid is poignant with her chemistry with Perkins providing some heart, and Jeff Fahey plays a sleaze to perfection.

On the whole, not a great film but could have been so much worse. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Reviewed by slimer8489 3 / 10

Overrated Sequel

I don't get it. Wherever I go, it seems like everyone is bashing Psycho II, yet praising Psycho III. Even Roger Ebert liked this movie... Why?

This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.

But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.

So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"

Reviewed by zkonedog 3 / 10

Why Hitchcock Hated Sequels

Alfred Hitchcock, the director of the incredible original "Psycho" film, despised the very concept of sequels and refused to make even a single one during his film career. Movies like this are exactly why.

For a basic plot summary, "Psycho III" sees Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) still running his hotel business and still harboring the embalmed corpse of Emma Spool, his supposed "real mother". When a young nun (Diana Scarwid) who bears a striking resemblance to Marion Crane needs a place to stay, Norman takes her in and clashes with "mother" once again.

The strange thing about this movie is that, storyline-wise, it really isn't all that bad. Basically, it isn't just bad for bad's sake, and director Perkins does a great job of re-creating the continuity from "Psycho II" and making this film feel like part of the anthology.

The problem, though, is that "Psycho III" doesn't know what kind of flick it is. It tries to be a slasher film for a while, but the overall Psycho narrative doesn't lend itself to that. It also tries to look at Bates' insanity from a new perspective, but only ends up muddying the waters even further. Plus, a religious aspect is introduced into the narrative, but doesn't accomplish anything in terms of character development.

Thus, this seems to me to be a film that started off with great intentions, but quickly descended (production-wise) into a nightmare. A few moments are decent enough for the franchise fans to keep watching, but others will just find it stupid. This effort can easily be skipped in the series.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment