Concordia UNIVERSITY chicago

Student:

Joe Davini
Crf_davinijd@cuchicago.edu
10952 Scripps Ranch Blvd Apt 2d, San Diego CA, 92131
Day Telephone:
707-849-7679 - PST
Evening Telephone:
707-849-7679 - PST

Assignment Title:
Film Paper 7
Date of Submission:
April 26, 2015
Assignment Due Date:
April 26, 2015

Course:
Film Appreciation
Section Number:

Term:
Spring 2015
Course Instructor:
Professor Richter

Certification of Authorship: I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the paper. I also have cited any sources from which I used data, ideas, or words, either quoted directly or paraphrased. I certify that this paper was prepared by me specifically for the purpose of this assignment, as directed.
Student’s Signature: Joe Davini

Joe Davini
04/26/2015
Film Appreciation

Film Paper 7 The original Psycho, from 1960, was a phenomenal film that was directed by one of the best directors, Alfred Hitchcock. This film was a psychological thriller-horror film, not normally a film I enjoy, but this one was different. This film was an immediate success once it was released, as it by the end of its first year, the film had earned over $15 million – over fifteen times as much it had cost to make; now that is insane (FilmEducation). Hitchcock directed a lot of great films, but Psycho was easily his most prolific one, and since Psycho II was created after his death, was far from great as the first one. Psycho was ranked as one of the greatest movies of all-time, something that should live on forever. Whenever sequels to films are made, you always wonder how it will compare to its predecessor. Usually the sequels aren’t anywhere near the same level, but then you have some films that are better, but that is very rarely. Same goes with Psycho I and Psycho II; Psycho I blew Psycho II out of the water, at least in my opinion. First off, Alfred Hitchcock wasn’t around when the second film was being put together as it was 22 years later, and for that reason you could already tell that the film wasn’t going to be as great as the first. I always feel that if you are going to make a sequel to a film, you need to have all of the same people in its production, otherwise what is the point? You know for a fact that it will not live up to the same level, or at least it shouldn’t. Whether it be the same directors, producers, actors, and anyone that was of great importance to the film should be around, or otherwise don’t bother. Some examples of this are Home Alone and Home Alone 2; both films were the same all around. But then you go to Home Alone 3 and on, and nothing is the same, new actors, directors and so on. The story line may resemble each other in some ways, but for the most part they are very different. There is always excited from viewers when it has been announced that their favorite film is coming out with a sequel. I know I have been that person before. I know that with Psycho it was probably no different. The first Psycho in my opinion was the more dominate and more popular film, which in my eyes make it by the far the better film and I believe most people would agree with me on that. One thing that I think may captures viewers even more about Psycho II compared to the first, is that idea that it was filmed in color, rather than black and white. That a lone is a huge difference between the two films and one that should be pretty relevant. Do I think that the second film was bad? No, not at all, just feel that the first one was always going to be hard to beat. The remake definitely doesn’t have the same freshness as the first film, which should be a given because it