I'm not saying it works. What I'm saying is that almost nobody gives it credit for what it was actually trying to do. It was not a normal cash grab remake like Platinum Dunes. It was not trying to replace PSYCHO for a new generation or "reboot" a franchise. It bothers me when people act like Van Sant was going for an easy buck, because it doesn't make any god damn sense. He just made GOOD WILL HUNTING and his idea for an easy buck is to make a movie where the very idea of it angers and confuses half the world? I don't think so. For an easy buck he would've done another feel good movie with Robin Williams. He was actually doing the opposite, using his clout to do something insane that he wouldn't normally be allowed to do.

His PSYCHO is really more of an art project than a movie. It can only work because it's a movie that most of us are so familiar with and because it is simple enough to almost be a play. Why do it shot-for-shot? Because nobody had done that before. What the fuck was it gonna be like to watch a movie like that? Watching his version is not so much about enjoying the plot of PSYCHO as it is about the surreal experience of seeing this familiar movie re-enacted with a different cast and a different look. And whatsisdick the macho drunk cinematographer did in fact make it weirdly beautiful. I would also argue that Viggo Mortensen (and only Viggo Mortensen) actually gave a better performance than the actor originally in his role.

I definitely have it in me to get worked up about remakes, but I don't really understand the fierce car-rolling hatred on that one. The movie didn't do well at all. It did not replace the original PSYCHO in anyone's minds of any generation. There is nobody that when you say "PSYCHO" they first assume you mean that version. It did not lead to a shitload of sequels or bobbleheads and lunchboxes with Vince Vaughn's head instead of Anthony Perkins. It was fun to watch once and find out what it was like to do a movie that way. My only real complaint is that he didn't have the discipline to make it quite shot-for-shot, he threw in a couple extra things. So the experiment isn't quite pure.

I'm not saying anybody should like it, but I wish people would at least acknowledge that what he was trying to do is not comparable to any of these modern day horror remakes (or even the ones before). That was an isolated case of the experimental art project remake.

As for SUSPIRIA, I'm on the fence. It seems like a bad candidate for a remake because it's all about directorial style. On the other hand I like Mr. Green's movies and having corresponded with him a little (he wrote the introduction to my Seagal book) I know he's a really smart guy who is passionate about movies and would definitely be trying to do it right. So if some motherfucker's gotta do it I'm glad it's him. Although having just stood up for Van Sant's PSYCHO I'm probaly not doing him any favors to be on his side. Whoops.