Skip to main content


Based on 23 Reviews
critic reviews (10)
fan reviews ( 0 )
  • 75
    Edward Guthmann San Francisco Chronicle

    Norman Bates is alive and well, and just a tad kinkier than you remember him. show more

  • 63
    Mike Clark USA Today

    Untantalizingly reverent remake. [7 December 1998, p.4D] show more

  • 63
    New York Daily News

    Cold, dull, lifeless. [5 December 1998, p.3] show more

  • 75
    Walter Addiego San Francisco Examiner

    William H. Macy is fine as the detective Arbogast, wearing a hat he could have borrowed from Martin Balsam in the original role. show more

  • 50
    David Sterritt Christian Science Monitor

    It's so slavishly similar to its predecessor - right down to the symbolic lettering on Marion's license plates - that there's little to spark fresh discussion except the acting. show more

  • 50
    Rick Groen The Globe and Mail (Toronto)

    In the shock department, the ante has been upped, way up, and a mere kitchen knife through a shower curtain just doesn't cut it any more. show more

  • 38
    Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times

    The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema, because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted. show more

  • 38
    James Berardinelli ReelViews

    Redundant and unnecessary. show more

  • 50
    Maitland McDonagh TV Guide

    Van Sant's film feels as dated as Hitchcock's, and Hitchcock's has the better excuse. show more

  • 50
    Ron Wells Film Threat

    The movie doesn't stink. The performances are good, potentially great, especially Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. show more

My Settings

You are currently subscribed as: {email}


Get the latest reviews, movie news, photos, and trailers sent straight to your inbox.

Weekly Newsletter

Daily alerts


You're not following any movies.

These are the movies you’re currently following.

    Update settings