Originally Posted by Quark
"It's 22 years later and Norman Bates is coming home." That was the tagline for the 1983 sequel to the 1960 original. Yes, for those of you that are unaware, they actually did make a sequel to one of the most popular horror films of all time. Is it bad? Well, according to me, no! Now, I know what you're thinking. How could they possibly make a sequel to that? Well, to answer your question, you just have to see it for yourself. What makes the film good, is that it doesn't try to live up to its predecessor at all. It's an 80s film and it knows that. It's nothing like the original, but it is a decent and enjoyable sequel.
Norman Bates is released from a mental hospital 22 years after the events of the first film. He chooses to return to the Bates' House and tries to start fresh. The 22 years away changes him and he is now fully aware that his mother is dead. After being dropped off, Norman gets a job working at a diner and even meets a cool co-worker who befriends him. When looking at his motel, he discovers it has become a motel for one night stands and young people that just need a place to chill. Norman, naturally is furious about this and wants things to be the way they were back in 1960. There are those that are happy for Norman but there is one person who will stop at nothing to ensure Norman's return to insanity...
Starring Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles and a young Meg Tilly, Psycho II is in no way a replacement for the original, but it sure should
not be missed. As far as the films that come after it, meh...I wouldn't recommend any of them. And don't get me started on the Vince Vaughn scene-for-scene remake...Nuff said.
I disagree, in my opinion III is better than II while the fourth one is indeed horrible due to the typical 'psychologizing prequel' problem.
Avoiding obviously unfair comparisons with the original I would label II and III mediocre B movies. Nothing that you have to watch, nothing that you regret you watch, nothing that you remember.