The original Psycho is a legendary film, mostly because it was a very risque project at the time. By 1983 the film industry had become significantly less puritan and slasher films were pretty commonplace as was showing some skin. Psycho II is actually very tame in this regard. The overall story and a vast majority of the acting is pretty bad. I feel as though it is a bit of an insult to the original that this thing was ever made.
The story starts out completely ridiculous: Norman Bates is being released from prison after a mere 22 years because he is determined to not be nuts anymore and i suppose this is fair enough although he did kill a bunch of people. Not guilty by way of insanity can only go so far but whatever, they needed a story and it wouldn't work behind bars (or would it?)
So Norman (played by the surprisingly wooden Anthony Perkins) goes back to his old house and has dreams of reopening the motel next to it. Of course people start immediately dying and here is the most absurd part of the movie: You have a guy who was just released from prison for murdering people at a specific place. He then goes back to that specific place. People at that specific place start dying or disappearing.
Now, I'm not a top agent for the FBI or anything but I think I can hypothesize a fantastic place to start the investigation.
source
I mean, obviously it isn't Norman Bates, that dude was cleared by the mental hospital, it couldn't possibly be him
basically, i was excited about this film based on the time that passed between the legendary original and well, this thing. Perhaps it was impossible for me to be impressed.
I have been told that part 4 is good. I'll watch part 3 and see what i can do after that.
