Psycho IV: The Beginning

Living in the past can be really dangerous. Aaron stated that, “You get so lost in distorted memories and rose-colored nostalgia that you fail to move forward and grow.” You get left behind somewhere that you cannot return from – not with anything to deal with reality, but not able to escape it. It’s becoming fixed.

Making film sequels is very much similar. Creative returns reduce as unoriginal devotion to the source material traps you. You hope to hit a homerun by returning to the same layer, but eventually the layer runs dry. Aaron says, “It’s a bit like Russian roulette—you keep taking chances on another positive outcome, but eventually you’re bound to end up missing part of your face.”

Having successfully dodged a bullet with “Psycho II” – surprisingly a good entry in a franchise that never should have been franchised in the first place – and getting hit with “Psycho III,” the decoy of fate was eventually going to bring Universal and producer Hilton A. Green (Hitchcock’s assistant director on the original “Psycho”) to a fail. “Psycho IV: The Beginning,” released in 1990, fails in just about every possible way.

From the beginning, we can tell that details are off. The famous lettering of “Psycho,” going back to the original film’s classic poster and used in the title cards of each of the first two sequels, is estimated here, but incorrectly. Aaron stated, “It’s a small and silly detail, but worrisomely indicative of the inattentiveness lurking around the corner.”

Nor does the storyline give much comfort. Norman, reprised by Anthony Perkins, is again a free man, living in a ordinary suburban home and married to an attractive young woman named Connie, played by Donna Mitchell, - who just happens to be his psychiatrist from his most recent institutionalization, a trained professional who fell in love with this psychotic serial murderer at first sight. Plausibility controls. As he prepares dinner, Norman listens to a radio program hosted by Fran Ambrose, played by the great CCH Pounder, the topic of which just happens to be killing your mother. Naturally, the secured, withdrawn Norman feels forced to call in and share his horrifying life’s story on live radio and to admit that he “must kill yet again,” as a murderer would admit. Aaron is right when he says, “Cue the thuddingly literal flashbacks.”

Screenwriter Joseph Stefano, author of the original film’s screenplay, seems to be giving an object lesson in how “not” to make a sequel. At every turn, “Psycho IV” depends on only on origin and fond memories for the generation of interest and suspense. Lines are stolen from the original, but without an obvious thought as to how they might function as respect or recall – they’re just vacant pokes at the depressions of the viewer’s mind. (Aaron admits, “The most annoying of these, without question, is Norman’s repeated use of the phrase “not inordinately”—a line uttered in the original film by Marion Crane in her office in Phoenix, long before arriving at the Bates Motel. Why, exactly, would Norman be using this odd idiom multiple times? He never heard or said it before. It’s lazy and sloppy and sadly indicative of what is to come.”) Unlike the previous sequels, “Psycho IV” reuses Bernard Herrmann’s iconic score, but occasionally twists it, committing the mysterious double sin of inviting associations to the original “Psycho” that do the sequel no favors “and” including horns, woodwinds, and percussion into a score that is famously strings-only.

Wait, there’s more! Remember the chair where Mother’s corpse was discovered at the end of the first film? There it is again! Isn’t its simple existence scary!? Remember how Norman used to eat candy corn from a paper back? Well, here is young Norman (Henry Thomas), after killing his Mother (the hot Olivia Hussey), doing the same thing “from a bag that cannot probably have come from anywhere in his district but apparently became visible out of thin air.” Isn’t that disrespectful!?

Even Stefano’s attempts at continuity/discontinuity are laughably disorganized. Stefano famously hated the first two sequels and so chose to ignore them – except that Norman openly states that he had been institutionalized again four years earlier (after the events of “Psycho III”) and, for some reason, released quickly enough to have allowed him to get married and get a house. Similarly, Stefano’s screenplay for the original film says that Mother’s boyfriend, played by Thomas Schuster, convinced her to give her time and money into building the Bates Motel, and that eventually Norman felt ignored and killed them both – yet here, Mother and Norman already have built and are running the motel by the time this controlling boyfriend comes into the picture. Taken together, it gives the film a disappointing sense of carelessness.

Worse yet, Stefano’s fundamental pride is misguided in almost every imaginable manner. Aaron mentioned, “Returning to Norman’s youth means telling us a story we already know—which presents an uphill battle in terms of maintaining interest—while simultaneously literalizing all of the pieces of Norman’s past that were so much better left suggested and implicit.” Nowhere does Stefano give us anything surprising or interesting – he just takes the mystery out of the room. Mother runs hot and cold, tempting young Norman into actions before screaming and beating him for doing the very things she provoked. Mother sometimes puts Norman in a dress. Norman starts developing feelings while embracing Mother. Mother blames Norman for all her problems and hates every man, even her father. Mother on the other hand tempts Norman and criticizes his desires. Aaron says, “None of it is implausible, but it’s all so head-smackingly obvious that the audience is likely to end up with black eyes.” At the same time, trapping your best actor in a supporting role where all he’s left to do is speak into the phone and set up the next boring flashback is – and this is merely a rookie’s suggestion – perhaps not the best use of one’s resources. (To his credit, Perkins gives his everything out of his stacks of exposition, but it’s a losing battle.)

Excellent of the film’s mistaken understanding of what is and is not essential to the prior films’ success is its employment of the worst scene in the original “Psycho” – the heavy psychiatrist’s explanation – as a launching pad. For us, Dr. Richmond, played by Warren Frost, just happens to be a guest on Ambrose’s radio program (what a coincidence!) and puts two and two together to determine that Norman (saying his name is “Ed”) is indeed the famous killer, Norman Bates. Just to make sure that everything is laid on strongly enough, Stefano makes sure that all of Norman’s enemies – Dr. Richmond, Mother, Mother’s boyfriend Chet (Schuster) are all evil, complete jerks. Apparently Stefano is unaware that the character he helped create is one of the most complex, sympathetic villains in cinema history and feels the need to force the audience’s position with Norman by placing him among a sea of hateful monsters. Naturally, the irregularity of it all only serves to further drain any drama from the happenings and elevates disturbing question, such as why Mother – a cold puritan to end every cold puritans – would be interested in the ridiculous womanizer Chet.

On a technical level, the film is not better. Mick Garris’ direction is boring and bland, lacking in any suspense. Aaron mentions, “Most hilariously tension-free is the first of two climactic scenes, in which young Norman finally kills Mother and Chet—Garris’ attempts to generate thrills (Will Mother drink the poisoned tea? Oh no, you thought they were dead but they’re not! Oh no, you thought they were dead again but they’re still not!) seem like something out of High Anxiety, a spoof of suspense filmmaking rather than the genuine article.” The film’s few murders are staged easily and for maximum non-thrills – and apparently Garris and Stefano don’t realize Norman uses a knife, not a length of rope, as his weapon of choice. Garris also discards any simulations of smoothly shifting between present day and flashback, accepting the screenplay’s awkward transitions at face value.

Thomas does his best as young Norman, not relying too much on fits and trembles, but ends up being a bit flat (though he’s so much better than Vince Vaughn’s interpretation of Norman as irregular creep). Aaron credits, “Pounder, similarly, gives her all as the concerned Ambrose, trying to ward off Norman’s promised new murder, but cannot elevate the scenes at the radio station above community-theater Law & Order.” Hussey, meanwhile, is frightful as Mother – while certainly beautiful (which helps sell Norman’s uneasy attraction to her); her performance does nothing to reduce the obviousness of Stefano’s script. Aaron mentions, “Instead she plays Mother as a graceless Tennessee Williams knockoff, with an accent moving fluidly between Southern belle, Northeastern WASP, and British schoolmarm.”

The thrills are not over yet, because we still have to deal with one remaining fact – who is it that Norman plans to kill now? The answer will not surprise you, though the way it plays out may infuriate you, dealing as it does with all sorts of unbelievable behavior from both Norman and his planned victim. However don’t worry, because the happy ending you can see coming a mile away safely arrives – Norman is saved by love! He sees his reflection in the butcher knife and knows he’s changed! The only thing standing between him and freedom is some heroic combustible. Aaron is right when he says, “It’s mind-bogglingly stupid—so stupid that even an actor as talented as Perkins can’t sell it.” As he says his final line, “I’m free” – completely straight-faced and with none of the great irony of “Psycho III’s” similar closing line – the drain chokes the last bit of oxygen from the room. However, at least at that point it’s over – except for one final annoying sound effect obviously intended to set up a (thankfully unproduced sequel). Aaron ends his review by saying, “Psycho IV is a cinematic abortion dire enough to make even the most fervent evangelical Christian pro-choice.”

In the end, you need to just avoid this movie at all costs. It is so terrible, that I think it should not have been made into a series of films. Actually, if they just changed the ending to “Psycho II” just a bit, then we would not have the abominations of 3 and 4. However, history is history and we cannot do anything to change it. All I can say, just watch the original and the sequel, and avoid the third and fourth entry in the series.

I did mention that Vince Vaughn took a turn at playing Norman Bates in a shot-for-shot remake. Wait until tomorrow in the finale to “Psycho-a-thon” to find out how bad it was.