Connect with us


The 5 ‘Psycho’ Films From Worst To Best!!!

The season finale of A&E’s “Bates Motel” airs tonight, so I figured I’d take a look back at the film that spawned it, Psycho, and the modest film franchise that followed.

Most of these movies were holding up fairly well in my memory except for Psycho 2 and Psycho 3, so I re-watched those over the weekend and was actually fairly surprised by how much I enjoyed them. When you think about it, the Psycho universe certainly has more solid installments than something like the Howling franchise, which is kind of neat. It’s just a bummer that the mythology of Norman Bates and the Bates Motel doesn’t really lend itself to much scrutiny (the minimal use of this stuff is part of what makes the original film so brilliant).

Head below for my ranking of The 5 ‘Psycho’ Films From Worst To Best!!!


Mick Garris’ Psycho IV strains credulity right off the bat by having Norman Bates once again freed by the justice system. I’m pretty sure that if you kill a few people, plea insanity, get “cured” and released – then kill a bunch more people and go back to jail/the asylum – that’s it. You’re done. But here, not only has Norman gotten a third chance, he’s got a wife and with a bun in the oven and he calls into a radio talk show to mull over the possibility of killing his son.

All that aside, the film feels cheap and small (it is a 90’s TV movie) and the early “prequel” material with Henry Thomas and Olivia Hussey isn’t particularly interesting. I mean, freaky stuff happens and the scene in which Hussey is poisoned is fairly brutal – but it’s an early example of the general rule that “the more you explain, the less interesting it is.”

4 – PSYCHO (1998)

I admire this film simply because I still don’t understand why it exists. I’m beginning to think that’s the point, that Gus Van Sant’s “shot for shot” Psycho remake is more art installation than movie. The fact that it got made is the art.

Vince Vaughn is fine as Norman Bates (Anne Heche doesn’t fare as well) while the little tiny additions (like the fapping sound to clarify that Vaughn’s iteration is indeed whacking off) again drive home more questions than answers. Why? 15 years later and we’re still wondering. To me, that makes this film worthwhile. It’s useless and I’m okay with that.

3 – PSYCHO 2

It had been at least 2 decades since I had seen either Psycho 2 or Psycho 3 so I revisited them both specifically for this article and was surprised at how much I liked them. They’re both ridiculous, but they possess a certain charm. Psycho 2 lags just behind the 3rd installment in terms of quality because its slower pace becomes tedious and the scheme to make Norman go insane again is just flat out dumb (as is the twist to Norman’s mother’s “real” identity).

Interestingly enough, this this is an early Tom Holland script (he would later go on to write and direct Fright Night and Child’s Play) but director Richard Franklin takes a curiously meandering approach to such pulpy material. It’s as if he doesn’t want to offend Hitchcock’s ghost by having too much fun. Ultimately Meg Tilly’s sweet, vulnerable performance edges this one forward but Psycho 2 presents an interesting conundrum that plagues the other sequels – the mythology of Norman Bates just isn’t that interesting.

Of course it works in Psycho because that film utilizes this information as the basis for a series of stunning reveals. “Oh sh*t his Mom’s dead! Oh sh*t he’s dressed as a woman! Oh sh*t he stuffed her!” But the actual day-to-day of his psychology is actually pretty tedious.

2 – PSYCHO 3

While Psycho 3 doesn’t benefit from a female lead as magnetic as Meg Tilly, it fixes the former film’s pacing problems, ups the violence and is in general more gleefully entertaining. Kudos to Anthony Perkins for getting behind the camera and manifesting what is in all probability the best you could reasonably expect from an unnecessary sequel.

I also really like how Psycho 3 is such a direct follow-up to the second film. It only takes place month or so later and many of the town’s characters are brought back onboard, so it really feels like these two films are a larger movie that’s been cut in half (even though they were filmed several years apart). It’s also helpful that Jeff Fahey plays the one person in the Psycho universe who you want to see die the most.


Of course this is the best. I can’t really add anything that much smarter people haven’t already said, except to say that this is a perfect example of a move that really shouldn’t have a sequel. As much fun as I had with the 2nd and 3rd installments, you’re only doing yourself a disservice when you try to elaborate on something that wasn’t meant to be elaborated on. And obviously it trumps all of the other films in the franchise on every other conceivable level.



  • Aaron Emery

    This is such an interesting franchise, if I were alive when the sequels starting coming I would have bitched about it as much as I bitch about, say, ‘The Thing’ 2011. See the interesting part for me is that these sequels aren’t bad movies, yea they are much different than what I believe Hitchcock’s intentions were with the original but they are still entertaining and watchable.
    It’s easiest to pretend that the remake just doesn’t exist, the whole idea of it confuses me.

  • Guilli Munster

    I remember this era of time. a whole lot of sequels in the videos stores.

    • TwistedCritic

      And a whole lot of video stores 🙂

      • Aaron Emery

        Until I’m done with school I work at the only video store left in my state. It’s a locally owned business and the revenue has gone to shit. Video stores are a dying breed gentlemen, support them ’cause they’re fun!

  • TwistedCritic

    Great article, but I think part II has the edge over III for sure. It’s definitely a matter of preference, but personally I liked the psychological, is-he-or-isn’t-he crazy aspect of II – it’s a mystery until the end. Part III was basically fuck it, he’s full-on crazy again, and it’s basically just a regular slasher movie from then on out.

  • Incinerated

    I never did watch the remake and “the fact that it got made is the art” doesn’t convince me to take a stab at it.

    I got the sequels in one of those dirt-cheap DVD multi-packs and was quite surprised by how enjoyable they were. I think out of any horror franchise, I expected the least from Psycho sequels. It was fun revisiting those through your take on them. Psycho II definitely has a great charm to it.

    • EvanDickson

      @Incinerated totally. I’m not sure I’m even thinking people need to watch the Psycho remake, just that it’s cool it exists in the way it does – if that makes any kind of sense.

  • dr.lamb

    I always mistook Meg Tilly for Jennifer Tilly ! Both are great, anyway. Bzw, I hope your little remark about Jeff Fahey doesn’t mean you don#t like him ?

    • EvanDickson

      He’s fine – it’s just his character is a sleazy rapist pretty much.

      • dr.lamb

        I see. Never saw the movie. Fahey himself is cool, he was great in “Planet Terror” and “Machete”.

  • Shawn Bates

    You actually put the awful 1998 remake above Psycho 4?? All the sequels are masterpieces of cinema compared to that piece of garbage. And Vince Vaughn was awful as Norman. His delivery of the lines sucked and he had no dramatic pauses. He sounded like he was reading off a cue card. Also I’m shocked you put Psycho 3 above Psycho 2. Especially because you say it had a slows pace. The original had a slow pace too. Its called building suspense. Psycho 3 is basically just another 80s slasher film and is easily the weakest of the sequels. And no offense but if you don’t find Norman’s psychology or mythology to be interesting then maybe you shouldn’t be writing reviews on Psycho movies. The fact that there have been four movies, three books and two TV shows seems to prove that most people disagree with you.

  • Scott Spencer

    “Psycho” shouldn’t even have had a sequel. “Hitch” didn’t want one.

  • Chris Steel

    I think Psycho 2 was genius. I actually prefer it to Psycho, though I would say The original was the better film…

    • Kelly Miller

      I totally agree..My fave is psycho 2…it’s got more of a creepy feeling than the original..

  • Sam Mills

    It goes to show personal taste really plays a role in these kind of lists. I would rank the first the best, but my list is virtually backward otherwise. Psycho 4’s screenplay was written by Joseph Stefano, who penned the original. The tone is much closer to the original film’s than the others. Psycho 3 was just plain weird.

  • Paul Strutzenberg

    i completely disagree! yes the original is the best and was and STILL IS a revolutionary film! while they didnt have to do a sequel, psycho 2 is BRILLIANT! seeing Perkins(RIP) at work, gettingbout of asylum and coming back home sane only to be driven crazy again by the sister of Marion Crane, and sisters daughter adds a nice touch! theslow pacing should be slow but its very deliberate seeing Normans downhill spiral, becoming INSANE again! Emma Spool wasnt needed though and it turns out she ISNT Normans “real” mother like she said thus we see NO RELEVANCE at all to having introduced her in my view. With Perkins acting process though it makes at least me forgetthat part and turns it into a very entertaining and worthy sequel:) 7/10! Psycho 3 for me was worse!

  • Paul Strutzenberg

    i also liked Psycho 4 i loved series ending with Norman finally overcoming his Psycho tendencies and ending on a beautiful and seeing Norman not giving in to killing his now WIFE allowng herself to get pregnant:) bringing him back for a final time sees norman as a hero so to speak and we feel very content as fans, learning he will be just fine!:) seeing his 1st murders also when mother WAS ALIVE and showing the poisoning of his mother and her lover, adds a great element too so yeah some of us love seeing Norman from that point, killing mother, then becoming mother, setting way for 1960s Psycho!

More in Editorials