Looks like Sequelitis again This Weekend

 

I'll be kicking off the weekend with Psycho III (1986) as I will once again [natch] hit plenty of the franchise 80's this-and-that's so it's to be expected. Over the years, I have watched this quite a few times. It is full of wickedness and I seem to be fascinated by the willingness of Perkins as director to go really dark and also reveal this naughty sense of humor. The tone is a bit off-kilter and all over the place. Sort of imbalanced like Norman. I've always reasoned that the intent of the screenplay and Perkins' direction was to be alluring, indecent, out of control (but not always), startling (the bursts of violence in the bathroom and phone booth), unsettling, and wittily perverse (the kiss on dead Katt Shea's lips and how the sheriff gets a good taste of bloody ice where her body rests such examples). I remain enamored with how far into the darkness Perkins takes Norman's descent, only driven by the previous film's mother and daughter combo and Mrs. Spool, all three contributing to his decline with the arrival of Maureen (having lost her faith and will to live, sort of a soul without direction), looking very similar to Janet Leigh in "Psycho" (1960), a LA reporter looking for a big story, and a sleazebag looking for green as he makes his way towards being a singer (Fahey was definitely an unstable dick who is sometimes seemingly of sound mind and temperament, while other times an absolute sick creep), always making sure no one damages his guitar. I've written about this and talked about this a lot, but I don't think I recall ever having a good conversation on the IMDb Horror Board with others about it. It is interesting to gauge the reactions of many on Letterboxd because much like the tone of this film, the response is quite mixed and up and down. I'll always wonder, I guess, what Perkins would have done with another sequel if "Psycho III" had been a hit. I am fascinated by this period of the slasher genre, as it would appear that horror was starting on a decline. Many horror films were not doing well despite all the genre offered of the time. Perhaps it was because the marketplace was so littered with titles. I was a kid, so I don't know. I do know that occasionally I return to "Psycho III" and have even watched it multiple times a year. I think I like that it is as unstable as Norman and Fahey's Duke, that it is quite willing the plunge the depths of evil, and that Norman's madness doesn't seem to find a cure despite learning of who Spool really is and destroying her body once and for all (even though he takes along with him a "keepsake" while on his way to what looks like the loony bin). The "Psycho III" poster remains one of my favorites...I remember seeing it in those HBO tiny schedule guides so common in the 80s, being quite taken by Perkins wicked face on the cover with a room key as the house lays in the background. I wonder why that alone didn't provoke folks to go see the movie.

Comments

Popular Posts