Psycho (1960/1998): Side-by-Side Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2018
- More side-by-sides: mattskuta.com/sbs/
A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison between Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) and Gus Van Sant's very very similar 1998 remake. Based on the book by Robert Bloch 
Развлечения
See more Side-by-Sides at mattskuta.com/sbs/
Comment to help me choose my next side-by-side:
The Great Gatsby (1974/2013)
Open Your Eyes (1997)/Vanilla Sky (2001)
Romeo and Juliet (1936/1968/1996/2013)
Animal Farm (1954/1999)
The BFG (1989/2016)
Avatar: The Last Airbender(2003)/The Last Airbender (2010)
Cinderella (1950/2015)
Clash of the Titans (1981/2010)
Nosferatu (1922)/Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
The Shining (1980/1997)
Ghost in the Shell (1995/2017)
The Great Gatsby and the Shining please .
Romeo and juliet
Rear Window (1954/1998)
Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella, Child's play, Joker 1966 1989 2008 2016 2019 please
The hunchback of Notre Dame please
The original Norman is much more disturbing than the one in the remake...
@Charlie O’Neill 🤷♂️
Charlie O’Neill yeah Vince Vaughn seems so out of place and makes Norman Bates feel more awkward than he should be
Such an odd casting choice. I wonder if GVS ever talked about his thinking here?
Anthony Perkins is best.....
norman bates was for ever and ever Anthony Perkins.
1998 version looks like a student movie
Exactly. GVS didn’t know lighting and lens as well as Hitchcock. Notice in the scene where Arbogast is killed. In the original you can see the light gleaming off the knife. You can easily tell what mother is holding. In the remake you can’t even tell what’s in mother’s hand.
No, you’re thinking about Carrie (2002)
I agree. The 1998 Version also looks too over exposed in coloring. The only things I liked about the remake was William H Macy as Arbogast, the opening helicopter shot, and the small homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s cameo in the original.
Yeah, I agree.
@@g-dog463 Agree William H. macy was inspired casting, possible only other actor who could have played arbogast is Steve buscemi. If they really wanted to remake themovie they should have done it completely different-like maybe do the actual book.
1:50 is fascinating because you can tell it’s the exact same location 38 years apart. It’s amazing how little it changed.
Yeah
Even though the remake sucked it was still pretty cool
@@scaryherry I disagree and believe that it’s only reason to exist is to be a bad example of a remake
wider road
@@madhousenetwork7765 it's a different angle
I will never understand why they cast Vince Vaughn as Norman.
He was TERRIBLE
Probably because no one else wanted to step into the shoes that only Perkins could perfectly fill, even though Freddie Highmore did a fantastic job. You just can’t beat the original sometimes
I kinda liked it hehe
María V. Hehe😂 each one has a different opinion. 👍
I didn’t think his performance was terrible but nowhere near as good as Anthony Perkins. If Vince Vaughn was cast in a better movie that was not a Psycho remake he would’ve gotten more praise
This case shows how execution is just as important as intent. Van Sant used the exact same script, music, shots and several of the same filming locations as Hitchcock, and simply did a worse job.
Instead of a shot for shot remake,it’s a shit for shot remake.
@@tonysmith4687 Janet Leight reminds me of..
It is not exactly the same movie shot by shot but an experimental movie where in one case Black and White is bleak in one case and in the other color rose and red are more vivid , those palettes are actors. Hitchcock Wins because black and White are more gothic and more suspenseful. Camera and angles are not quite the same. And actors have less charisma in gus van Sant case.
@@vizitorluu9263 plus the timing. 1960 society was very different from 1998 society, especially when it comes to the film industry. Hitchcock version predated a lot of horror classics that were in the rear view for the 1998 remake and it had to live in comparison. Also, Hitchcock had the element of surprise as people were seeing the story play out for the first time and audiences had no idea what would happen next. Everyone already knew what was coming for the remake and that makes for a suspense killer.
It's ridculous to compare them by calling it 'worse'. RIDICULOUS. Do you really think he tried to make a 'better' version?
The B&W was on purpose in the original Psycho. Hitchcock used it to create a special vibe.
The coloured version is not even half as frightening.
If you notice early in the movie theres birds out side her window..The Birds.
@@skywolf2012 no?😂
No he did it because it was cheaper
Aileen Corcoran pretty sure he did it so he wouldn’t have to cut out any blood
it was to get past the censors by making the blood less graphic and shocking
Me: "Mom can I have Psycho"
Mom: "We have Psycho at home"
Psycho at home: 1998 version
Yes
lol yes
Lol yes
(Takes 1998 version and destroys it) mom i think i broke it. Can we have psycho now?
@@filmshoot472 mom: ok lets go get a new one (a new 1998 version)
The scariest thing about Norman in the original is he has a kind face; there's no way anyone would suspect that he's a monster.
Perkins has that dorky vibe and boyish looks and charm that really captured Norman's innocence and didn't make you realize just how messed up he really was. Vaughn didn't even try to hide that Norman's a deranged psychotic. The difference is day and night.
It's basically a shot for shot remake of the original
The only difference is that it's so much worse. I really dislike the main actress of the remake
Neither of these films is original cause they're adaptations of the novel dumbasses.
No the main actress is not the worst how dare you
Sergeant Kek He’s referring to the original MOVIE not novel you dumbass
This makes me think that the remakes of the 2000s is superior to remakes in the 1900s
Casting this guy as Norman Bates is like casting Jack Black as Luke Skywalker
Edit 2021: okay now that I think about it that would be cool
Jack Black would make a killer Luke Skywalker.
@@naturesfinest4871Yes 👍.
It’s like casting Jack black as Hannibal Lector
@@themysteriouscatperson9483 did you see "Bernie"?
It's like casting Jack Black as Jason Voorhees
Like Roger Ebert said, the 1998 version served as nothing more than an experiment in shot-for-shot remakes
14:14 you can see the difference between amature acting and legendary acting. And that scene's lighting is so powerfull (1960).. The other one is flat lighting in an intense scene!
Everything is awkward. That pink dress on ann heche is awkward.
That face on 1998 looks silly
@@lucariothehorrorguy5641 The 1998 is pretty scary but during all the movie, Norman is constantly acting creepy and perverse so when he finally fell totally under control of his mother, we don’t feel the effect because he was already creepy as himself so this last face means nothing
Yeah, and the acting just shows how superior the original Norman Bates is compare to the other one. Combining the B&W tone with acting, Anthony Perkins barely moves his facial features so that the audiences can be directed to focus on his malicious eyes, and the last shot was in front of his face, showing the slow-changing face of Perkins. The new one, on the other hand, feels like the actor is just looking around because the script told him to, and the last shot with the camera above his face is just awful.
@@lucariothehorrorguy5641 you mean the face Norman makes in the bad remake..? Yes, absolutely!
No one will ever outdo the original. It is perfect the way it is. The remake does nothing new it is the same exact thing only in color but with worse acting
The colour makes the movie actually worse.
Yeah, look at the blood in the shower scene. I wasn't buying it. I was disappointed.
@@armiproductions5680 Watch Valkyrie (Tom Cruise) in Black and White. Much more powerful. Also, I bet the Psycho remake would look better if you watched it in black and white. The color did make it look worse.
@@oath7219 No this actually about acting
@@oath7219 did you look all scene is same nothing change is remake
The original just looks better in every way. Better looking actors too. Norman Bates in the original actually looks like a shifty guy.
Arnold Rivers I would kill him first either way
I think the point is that he looks shifty...
Arnold River
Not even Vince Vaughn is convincing as Norman Bates.
Sam Kresil i mean vince vaughn doesn’t fit norman bates as an actor at all, he works really well as a guy who’s comfortable talking to people and that’s the complete opposite of norman bates
1960's much better
ivana delic no it’s not bitch dir
Heh
One's done by a master of suspense, the other by a forgettable director.
Anthony Perkins all the way.
@@abhainnxv1554 Gus Van Sant made alot of good movies. Milk, To Die For, Good will hunting, and My Own Private Idaho. He's made a bad movie, but he made plenty of good movies.
The “remake” had no imagination or originality at all. Just a modern playback of the original. The director went out of his way to make it identical which is ridiculous.
It's not a remake. It's a high budget fan film and Gus Van Sant can suck it.
It’s not even a modern playback the kills are exactly the same no practical effects or anything
This movie has been said to be an experiment. The director was trying to prove that even with the same screenplay and exact style of how the film was shot. A film can’t be cloned or be identical .
And that's why you play piano and don't make movies my man
I dont even get the point in remaking it how he did. First off everything looks so bright colourful and oversaturated, it looks more like a romantic comedy then a psychological horror. Not to mention the fact that he did the shower scene completely identical. Hitchcock was restrained due to how much limitation on film there was for gore and nudity back then, that's one of the most perfect scenes he can recreate, similar to how the tv series did so, making it more gorey while still staying true to the original.
Friend: Did you do the homework?
Me: No I forgot it, can I copy yours
Friend: Sure, but make sure to don't do it exactly the same
Me:
Haha
@Gappie Al Kebabi because the teacher will know that you copied your friend home work and will punish you
But it’s more worse
That’s the point of a remake my guy
@@user-rw9yo2pc6e but in some remakes they don’t plagiarize the whole thing
One thing the original conveys to me is how human Janet Leigh looks as she’s initially testing the shower water and just thrilled to be scrubbing herself after the day she’s had. It’s very genuine. Annne Heche’s looks like acting and direction.
“She doesn’t go just to clean her body…this is a cleansing of her soul. She’s in that shower and you see the water and she’s saying: ‘Yes, this is right.’ She’s washing away not just the dirt from the road, but she’s washing away the dirt that she put on herself by being a thief. She’s washing this away. She’s going back to reality and to being who she is. And that’s why when this happens…it’s so…shocking.” - Janet Leigh
I agree. Janet Leigh was great as Marion. Even though she stole money, you really sympathize with her. She really wanted to marry Sam and maybe even have children with him so she decided to steal the money to marry him and pay off his debt. What’s sad when she gets killed was she going to return the money. Anne Heche is just too cheery and sassy to be Marion. Marion was a serious down to earth woman.
@@huntercoleman460 Plus, what's with Anne Heche's hair? She looked boyish. Definitely toned down her sex appeal which Janet Leigh had in spades.
@@jacksongomez5116 Agree.
@@huntercoleman460 I agree and I don’t think that’s Heche’s (RIP) fault. I think that’s the fault of the director, Gus Van Sant, for not showing her how Leigh conveyed the joy she has she she starts the water and starts taking her shower.
One of the issues is that it isn't shot for shot. Van Sant clearly starts changing things heavily after the shower scene. The blocking is also different from the beginning. In each scene, either the actors are being directed to awkwardly mimic the previous performances or they're doing something totally different that misses the point of the shot the remake is mimicking. This movie is very "uncanny valley" for anyone that's seen the original; everything is the same, but wrong. Though it would be cruel, it would be worthwhile for someone who's never seen the original to watch the remake first and share what they think.
Vaughn is also too big and "hip serial killer" looking. Vaughn is 6'5" or so and Mortensen is maybe 5'10". There's a shot in the original where Loomis "looms" over Norman that the remake struggles to fake.
If you pause at 14:36 and look at the original, you can see Norman smiling and behind him is a faded picture of his mother. That’s incredible what they did
I noticed that when seeing the film for the first time. The ending scene is so powerful and well done.
@@zachedwards5692 agreed
It's in both the original and the remake.
@ I know. I just think the original did it better. And freakier
The 1998 version just feels wrong.
Cuz it's bad.....
Yes
Meh, it's alright. I mean, it's serviceable for how it works due to Stefano's script, like it just exists and that's it, without harming the original and without harming the TV prequel series.
Yes and it's hilarious
Just shows you can't improve upon perfection, you can only try to copy it.
"Look how they masacred my boy"
-Vito corleone
There's something about the new one that just makes it look unprofessional...
Nothing compares to Hitch's gem .
1960 's : it still recreates how enjoyable and scary shadows could be.
1998's : nothing, except for Viggo's lovely body is for me memorable to remember.!
The one from 1960 is simply an incomparable jewel.
I can't wait to see the 2036 remake.
Did Psycho need a remake? No. Did we want a remake? Definitely not.
Love how you can literally watch this with no dialogue and still understand everything that is happening. Never should of remade this masterpiece.
thank god anthony perkins wasn’t around to see this remake
Thank god Alfred Hitchcock would have died of heart attack after seeing the remake version
Tell me about it
@@joseyjamesyogiaveedu4656 Are we thanking God that he died earlier?
In Roger Ebert’s review " The most dramatic difference between Psycho(1960) and Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot remake is the addition of masturbation scene", literally cracks me up.
And also the way Anthony Perkins did facial expressions in the final scene always frightens me to death. But I cannot see such expressions in the remake.
Disney did the same with The Lion King
Cinderella, beauty and the beast and Aladdin too
Val 97 Cinderella got a live action remake?
@@axelnilsson5124 yep in 2015
@@HobieBrown97 ) those were different from the originals,
@Jason The Tank Engine True that, and I certainly attribute on the fact that Guy Ritchie definitely tried to get out of the "Disney box" and certainly wanted to make it his own. And I think he did in a way
The original will always be the best.
That’s what I thinked when I watched the 1998 version the day after I watched Hitchcock’s 1960 original
There’s one scene in particular, when she’s in the motel’s bathroom ready to take a shower Norman peeking through literally masturbates. So yeah. Pretty weird shit.
The original is just not only better than the remake but was also ahead of it's time!
It’s modern day 1998 but everyone is dressed like they’re in the 60’s. Ok
I mean , the 60s style did have a bit of a comeback in the 90s , but I agree it still overbearing lol
You do realize that this movie took place in the 1960s right and not the 1990s? The remake was obviously trying to be super faithful to the original for whatever reason.
@@footlessmoonbadger7189 I’m aware. But if the movie is set in the 1990’s then maybe it should look like it. Everyone already knows it’s a remake you don’t need to keep the 60’s aesthetic to honor it.
@@ryann45 it was made in 1998 but its still set in the 60s i thought
@@James-yg7dz No way. Those car styles , the walkmans , the computers did not exist in the 1960s.
Moral of this video : Never ever remake an Alfred Hitchcock movie, you'll never capture his vision on screen
I don’t really get the point of the new one. The original is one of the best films to ever be made, what were they hoping to achieve?
I'm guess to get that same spark twice..... Clearly it didn't work
Because every horror movie, or more like slashers are obligated for some reason to have a remake!
Van Sant literally did it to prove what a shit idea remaking classic films is
@@TrenchocraticKampuchea When asked why he even directed it, his response was "So no one else would have to." That says a whole lot, and I can't argue with it.
while it still wouldn’t be any good, at least if they made it a genuine remake and actually changed things about the film then we could take something from it. it’s literally the same film shot for shot only not as good smh
comparing these two films and one learns multitudes about narrative film making: framing, pacing, casting, acting, economy, lighting, sound
The 1998 version was like watching an Interdimensional Cable version of the original Psycho.
Could imagine how disappointed Hitchcock would've been if he was alive and see that someone ruined his masterpiece by doing a unnecessary shot for shot remake
Old is always gold@ 1960 actors was too best
I'm a HUGE Hitchcock fan, but I respect the remake. You go to see the same play with different actors. You go to see the same ballet with different dancers and the same opera with different singers. It's always interesting to see what an individual artist does with a role.
The remake isn’t necessarily bad it’s just, this is almost the exact same movie just with a different cast, I do feel like they should’ve casted Willem Dafoe as Norman Bates he would’ve been better than how Vince Vaughn played him. And also I wish Willam H. Macy’s Arbogast survived at the end, I know that this is a mostly shot for shot remake but I wish Willam H. Macy’s version of Arbogast lived at the end of the movie.
I am an even"huger"Hitchcock fan..;-)watched the remake by coincedence when it was shown late on TV some years ago..I didnt think it was totally bad then, but I also thoufht: why did rhe have to rwfilm it? To make it an experiment, you have to REALLY make a difference, not only make a coloured copy: to think, colour is better than black&white,prooved wrong- especially for an athmospheric story as"Psycho"provides!
They thought, filming "Psycho" frame by frame would be a save thing to keep it tense or as good as the original in general, was an error!
The thing with ballet, opera and plays is that a big part of the experience is that you are seeing those people in a live setting - not at all like a movie. And all of those mediums were designated to be replicated with other actors and productions, they were created with that exact intetion - again, very much unlike movies. I dont think it is the same thing at all. Unless you bring something new to the table, what is even the point of remaking the same film?
@@menoguchi amen, such a pleb take
same.. it is good to see the difference, and how much can the acting and casting influence
14:31 Sorry, but the original is unbeatable, the remake looks like a casting audition
I consider the remake an interesting experiment, to put on a modern spin while at the same time being faithful to the story...but Vince Vaughn was definitely a miscasting. Anne Heche was surprisingly adequate but she pales by comparison to Janet Leigh. Heche did not drew you in and did not make you invest in her character as much as Leigh did. I also like the re-imagining of Lila by Julianne Moore. But overall, the shot by shot comparison only highlight the remake's shortcomings.
It's an accurate recreation but everything is just much worse in the remake, there's no point to watching this version, it's basically a bad copycat.
Side-by-side comparisons are amazing. Thank you for doing this one!!!! It has always festered in my mind....to see a side-by-side comparison of Psycho and the remake. This video is a visual eyegasm
So something I just realized.
In the 1960 version, Marion stole $40,000. Assuming all $100 bills, that stack should be about 1.7 inches thick.
In the 1998 version, Marion stole $400,000, which should be about 17 inches thick. A bit big for one small envelope.
But at least some of it was $1000 dollar bills in the remake.
@@eblackadder3Not some. All. Two stacks of 1000 dollar bills, 200 bills per stack.
@@MoviePro84 There are only around 250,000 small size $1000 bills still known to exist.
Danny Elfman who composed for the film advised to Gus Van Sant, the director about the negative reviews it might receive but he still felt confident about remaking it, anyway.
Even though this is the exact same movie with the exact same score, Danny Elfman never fails to make a good soundtrack.
The clear winners in this side-by-side comparison: Bernard Herrmann . . . and Matt Skuta's patient and laborious editing. 👏
Still don't understand why we needed the 98' version.
We didn’t.
Because they wanted to color it but it just ends up being a terrible movie
1998 should’ve tried to make it more of an adaptation than a remake, like do some things from the book that the 60s movie didn’t do. I think we probably would have gotten a better movie, what hurts the 90s version is that it doesn’t change anything and the acting isn’t as good.
This remake is the most pointless thing since trying to play E.T atari
I know this probably isn’t a huge deal but I always found it funny that Janet Leigh dresses in a button up turtle neck shirt with a proper demeanor after stealing the money while Anne Heche looks like she’s heading for a Florida cruise ship. The original is more ironic in that department and it suits the tone of the movie better as a result.
It also kind of makes sense considering she wouldn’t want to drawn attention to herself because she just stole
Even the shower curtain is better in the original.
I love all the performances in the remake except the two leads. But, sadly, it is the two leads that make or break the film. Viggo Mortensen, Rita Wilson, William H. Macy all give fun performances that are great updates to their respective characters. Robert Forster makes the psychoanalysis scene more tolerable by speaking less dramatically (and faster). Anne Heche, however, plays it a bit "too loose." It looks like her character is looking for trouble, whereas Janet Leigh plays it very cautious and careful, making her death more shocking. And Vince Vaughn doesn't work for me at all. But he can probably be forgiven because Anthony Perkin's performance is damn near irreplaceable. It's also sad that two of my favorite filmmakers, Gus Van Sant and Christopher Doyle, were involved in this. Still, I don't object anyone attempting this. And I wonder what someone like Brian De Palma would do if he were tasked with this.
it's amazing how the director of the remake made those good actors act so bad on the iconic scenes to the point that they could be starring in a porno
The 98 Norman looks like a friend's uncle at a party... 60 Norman looks so much more menacing... Not to mention that camera zoom in the final scene. So much more creepy and iconic...
1998 shower scene may be the worst thing I’ve ever seen
You didn't like that ass shot? c'mon :P
literally
@@KohlJones eee no
@@KohlJones perv
@@KohlJones LOL, I mean I'll give it that, but wow the acting was nowhere near as good as the original.
Alfred Hitchcock's version all the way.
This film was an interesting experiment.
Stage plays are remade all the time. For example, the cast in the US version of Hamilton, isn’t the same as the version in the UK or Australia. But it’s the same show, same choreography, same script. They all work, which is strange.
I think the cast are pretty good, but Vince Vaughan is miscast. He looks like he could kill you. I guess where The Bates Motel went right, is they took the idea and did their own thing with it.
What’s interesting though, is 22 years later and Disney is absolutely killing it at the box office with shot-for-shot remakes
Yeah, Vince Vaughn is not great as Norman Bates, Willem Dafoe should have played Norman Bates, and I believe Samantha Mathis should have taken the role of Marion Crane rather than Ann Hace.
@@beeking1792 An older Norman might work if it wasn't a shot for shot remake.
I didnt even know there's 1998 version until now
Love the addition of the psycho theme to the shower scene comparison.
Stop right there. In the first place the 1998 one should have never been made.
Edward Winters Do Tell!
Kudos. This comparison is exquisite & the score is right on key: masterful music.
I will always stand by Alfred Hitchcock's classic; it was, by far, much more superior than anything a remake could have ever offered.
Thank God Hitchcock didn't get to see this movie.
This is the best horror of all time it won’t ever be matched it’s really the one that starts it all
5:32 the moment you’ve been waiting for
Koridai011 thanks!
Thank you. You save my time.
No it's 6:00 tbh 😊
Koridai011 shut up perv
Brandon Shaw Anne Heche is terrible in this film but at least we got to see her butthole.
Where did the makers of 1998 version got the Audacity to recreate such a Masterpiece!
Ok, so Anne Heche carried around a parasol at the car dealership! That was the standout difference! :-P
I was watching this movie today in my film class and it was amazing
Witch one ?
This is literally a frame by frame remake! What's the point on remaking it?
Anne Heche, R.I.P.
Psycho (1960): Diamond😍
Psycho (1998): Garbage😣
No they both are Diamonded
@@aidanreed8359 it's a bad remake it's not scary and I don't feel the same as the 1960
I actually liked certain elements from the remake more than the original. Mainly the end.
@@rykersmh469 wtf !
More like
Psycho (1960) AMAZING
Psycho (1998) Crappy
I think is a great job
Trying to do the same as the 60's version but making a 90's color movie.
For me... Excellent
R.I.P. And Heche.
Thanks for this - I loved both versions - this is a great watch and saved to my favourites
1960 version is true horror/thriller
1998 version is more like a dark comedy
Vince Vaughn is more goofy looking, whereas Anthony Perkins is just plain creepy...
Classic 1960 will never be topped
Norman Bates is forever and ever and ever Anthony Perkins ...
I don't understand why the director tried on making an exact copy of such a MASTERPIECE !!
RIP Anne Heche.
I prefer the original version because I was in love of Anthony Perkins :)
5:41 Fun Fact: In the original Psycho for the blood in the shower scene they used chocolate sauce. (Since it’s a black and white movie you couldn’t tell)
Both are great
The bad acting stands out. Marion doesn't seem dead in the remake.
Felipe Everson It was an experiment
@@the_slime_cat Better actors should've been chosen.
Felipe Everson Okay.
The original is "practically perfect in every way" ♥️
I'e never seen 1998's version before...
Looks like a one-hit-wonder slasher movie more than a Hitchcock legend
The actual date was Friday, December the eleventh in 1959.
Psycho 1960 & 2022 Side by Side. Me, My Sister Vicky, My Brother-in-law Steve, My Nephew JJ & My Niece Daphne went to the Nursing Home in McLeansville, NC & Visit Marc Poe.
I like how in the remake there is more money in the envelope. That must be due to inflation.
You may not like the 1998 version. But you gotta tell it, it's EXTREME loyal to the original. Step by step.
Jeckson Vasceroli nothing creative or surprising
@@maxmusic5380 in fact, that's true. It is a "Psycho" in colors. That's it.
Jeckson Vasceroli that’s what makes the remake bad it makes the EXACT same as the original with nothing new
TOO loyal..
@@maxmusic5380 that was the original intention, to make a color version and not change anything.
Terrific! Thx for doing this!
Mother oh God mother, blood, blood!
Should never have been remade. The era and hatchbacks idea of suspense were what made that film as iconic and brilliant as it was. As it was "mirrored" so much, I genuinely didn't see the point.
The actress of 1998 remind me Rosemary.
Incidentally, I'm nearly 100% certain that I saw the '98 shower scene as a child when I (or one of my family members) was flipping through channels, & I was so terrified & traumatized by it, I was too scared to even watch the original shower scene when I became a grownup...until a few years ago. And not only that, but I'm equally certain that watching that scene (from '98) gave me a youth-long aversion to showers. Guess I should've been sent to the dry cleaners, huh? XD
In my opinion, I believe this was the first Hollywood movie that did a shot for shot remake.... Another is Omen.
Really neat Side-by-side comparison.
This is the perfect example of the statement “don’t fuck with with original”. The sad thing is there were some fairly big names in this remake which is probably why it was given the green light, along with a well-known director. However, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should 😳😑
Original movie in 1960 is better...wt a actress and actors that time....and making was so good ..and amazing quality of film in black white in 1960....but new remake is worst and waste...I think they must not do remake of that film ....it's a insult .....
Excellent work
Thank you
Omg,the ending smile of the remake😂😂😂😂😂