Official Psycho Parody (2010)

Based on: Psycho (1960)

Warning: Spoilers!

For some of these porno parody reviews I aim to look at the films they are based on beforehand. However this time I decided to instead watch Gus Van Sant’s 1999 remake of the classic film. Mainly because A: I have seen Hitchcock’s original and B: I’ve never seen the remake. Van Sant’s version is actually a shot by shot remake so it’s kind of like watching the original. When asked for a reason why he did this, he essentially said so it would be like watching the original but in colour with a modern cast. So really it’s a very expensive way to colourise a film. It’s certainly an unusual approach to remaking a film but historically things like this have been done before. Back in the 30’s Laurel and Hardy would reshot scenes in multiple languages to help market their films for foreign markets. And Universals Dracula was practically remade whilst the original was being made. In the daytime the famous Bela Lugosi film was being shot and at night on the same sets the Spanish version was made. A very time consuming and expensive way to dub a film. Although Hollywood practically does this with foreign films all the time.

Van Sant’s remake was considered sacrilege by critics and filmmakers, both before and after it was made. Many consider Psycho to be Hitchcock’s masterpiece and should be left alone. But Van Sant promoted his shot by shot remake as an experiment, in to what I don’t know. I guess the mastery of Hitchcock’s filmmaking. However this just made people think that it wasn’t just sacrilege but also very pointless. It isn’t exactly though a 100% copy, there are some artistic differences. The film is now set in the modern era, the script has been tweaked (by the original scriptwriter no doubt) and a handheld camera is used in some scenes. Some of the actors have chosen to make their characters their own whilst some have tried to imitate the originals as much as possible, making the acting sometimes feel very strange. Less like the cast are playing characters rather than playing other actors playing a character. There are a lot of shots that standout as they are plain imitations the iconic shots of the original such as the cop staring directly at Marion as she wakes in her car, or the ceiling shot of Norman carrying his mother downstairs.

From the moment the opening credits roll Van Sant’s film latches tightly onto Hitchcock’s mastery. The Saul Bass credit sequence, backed by Bernards Herman score, appears almost exactly as the original but with some added green. We then get a admittedly very impressive helicopter shot flying past the tall buildings of Phoenix and straight through the window of the seedy hotel where the film begins. A shot that was near impossible back in Hitchcock’s day. Viggo Mortensen mumbles through his dialogue, seriously I just couldn’t make out what he was saying in this film. But it seems to be very same-y. The colours really pop out being a stark contrast to the original black and white, which I believe was an artistic choice rather than a limitation of the day, as Hitchcock had made plenty of colour movies before then (though the budget for Psycho was a lot tighter). As Marion and her boyfriend talk we hear another couple next door having sex, the first indication that this film will make some minor deviations along the way. In fact that is the main deviation; sex. A thing that 1960 was only suggested or hinted at. And it mainly comes from Norman Bates himself. We see the odd porno magazine lying around in his childhood room for one thing and odd flash of a nude woman during one the killing scenes. But the major change is during the peeping scene. Bates plants Marion in the room 1 on purpose, so he can peep on her changing from the parlour next door. Vince Vaughn’s version of Bates seems to want to take this scene further and jacks off seeminglessly without motivation. It was never really made clear that Anthony Perkins version of Bates peeping was even sexual.

Hitchcock’s Psycho is one of those films that many feel should be left untouched, however Gus Van Sant’s isn’t the only one who tried latch on to the classic. Psycho has had three sequel’s and a TV movie spinoff; Bate’s Motel. And more recently had a TV series also called Bate’s Motel. The sequels were fairly low budget affairs that had little input from the original creators (Hitchcock had long past away by this point), and were considered like the remake as pointless. Perkins did reprise his role however the original didn’t really need sequels. It was fairly complete as it is. That said Psycho II is actually a very good film. Not on the same caliber as the original. If perhaps they changed the title and the characters name it could have been considered a horror classic.

Who wants to shack up here?

Now onto the Official Psycho Parody. First of that title. Urk. Nothing sits right with that title. What makes it ‘official’? Is there involvement from Robert Bloch, the writer of the original novel?

Did the makers, Zero Tolerance, reach a licensing agreement with Universal? Maybe when films come out this will be part of the whole merchandising package; soundtrack, novelisation, action figures, porno parody etc… But alas there’s no mention of Universal, or really any association with the original film. So what makes this film official? I don’t really know. It’s really unofficial, like any other porno pardy. And would hurt to add a ‘The’ at the start of the title. Official Psycho Parody, sounds more like a description. And what kind of parody? Most others have at least some mention, XXX, Porn… The cover doesn’t even look like porno, but like a cheap bargain bin horror. Very misleading. So let’s correct that title; The Unofficial Psycho Porn Parody. Surprisingly they have used the same font for the title as the original films.

The original film (and Gus Van Sants remake) followed Marion Crane, who steals a bundle of cash from her work in order to get her boyfriend out of debt. She goes on the lamb, eventually ending up at the Bates Motel. She meets Norman, who lives with his mother and runs the motel. They have dinner and talk. Afterwards she retires and has a shower. The mother, filled with raging jealousy bursts in and the stabs her to death. The main character, who we spend half of the film getting to know is dead. Norman discovers the misdeed and disposes the body. Not long after a detective, Marion's sister and Marion’s boyfriend come looking for answers. Things happen and they discover Norman’s mother has been a shrivel up corpse hidden away in the basement all this time and that it was actual Norman doing the killing, who has assumed his mothers personality.

Before watching this porn parody one thing came to my mind. I’m very likely going to be watching a porno where the main character gets stabbed to death. I didn’t know how I felt like that. Although in most porno’s once they had sex they would very likely not be seen again anyway.

The film starts with a recreation of the famous Saul Bass opening credits, we then meet Marion Crane (Sara Sloane) and her boyfriend in the hotel having their lunchtime affair. There’s no sex to be seen, they’ve already had it. Marion gets back to the office. Her boss comes in with a client, who has an impressive wad (of money). The boss tells her to take it straight to the bank. So off she goes and skips town. Back at the office Marion’s colleague (Katie Jordin) decides to offer herself as an incentive to the ongoing business deal. The three have sex, on Marion desk no doubt. Won’t she be pleased…

She makes it to the Bates Motel, and it looks impressively awful. That doesn’t put her off though and so in she goes. She meets Norman, a man who wears red nail polish, high heals and as she later finds out ladies panties. Marion retires to her bedroom. Norman spies on her through his peephole and lusts over not her but her brooch.  After a while Marion overhears Norman and his mother arguing about crotchless panties (indeed). He then comes a knocking at Marion’s room offering a sloppy sandwich. Unimpressed she accepts it. They go in to the parlour where Norman shows her his crudely stuffed birds. She then spots a more realistic creation sitting in the corner, his old nanny, preserved and taxidermy-ed. This somehow sets her off. Yes in that way. She’s fucking aroused by the sight of her. She demands that Norman screw her. He agrees but only if he gets her brooch and pumps.

A hooker

After the dirty deed is done off she goes to have a shower. You can guess what happens next but her sex scene is done with so It’s fine. And after that dirty deed we meet the Detective, who with Marions boyfriend and sister are trying to find out what had happened to her. The detective is the first to visit Bates, and after he does he goes off to another motel and screws a hooker (Kagney Linn Karter) (who is not in the original film). The sister and boyfriend then see the local Sheriff who explains that Norman grew up always feeling great pressure from his mother, being that she was a fashion diva with very high standards. Which explains the crossdressing elements. They leave and the sheriff ,wearing high heals, screws his wife (Francesca Le), unloading himself on said high heels.

The sister (Breanne Benson) and boyfriend check out Bates house and find Norman entertaining the perfectly preserved dead bodies of his Mother and Marion. Lost for hope, they leave and find the way to overcome the issue and move on is to fuck. And so they do.

what to do.. what to do?

Well I have to admit this film was better than expected. The first time we meet Norman with hints of transvestitism kind of bothered me a bit. It suggest that he was transvestite. However Bates wasn’t so much, it was more a requirement from the Mother personality. However as the twists of the story become apparent it seemed to made sense. And that twist at the end, I absolutely loved it. It was unexpected, probably not original and no doubt done in horror films before. It also explained why we don’t see Norman cleaning up his ‘Mothers’ mess after the shower scene which is a key scene in the original. Along the Marion’s long drive in the original, these are both tension filled scenes that probably aren’t essential when the story is more time limited in a porn. Marion getting aroused by the sight of Norman’s taxidermy work was however extremely weird and disturbing but so is thought of them having sex.

For the most part the locations, costumes and makeup look alright for the era. Maybe the guy playing the boss could have been older, or least not had a modern hairstyle and glasses. Maybe if they threw a stylish wig on him it would looked fine… Sexwise we start off with a threesome and then we get four straight couple scenes. All of which seem to almost follow the same pattern of cunninglingus, blowjob, sex with some ass licking thrown in. The women look fantastic and are a treat to the eyes. The only one who doesn’t see any action (aside from the nanny) is the actress briefly playing the mother in a flashback scene. With her squeaky voice and petite physique I think she would have great to see getting down.

Overall, It’s an entertaining parody with a great twist at the end that should no doubt surprise those who are familiar with the original.

Night of the Groping Dead (2001)

Inspired by: Night of the Living Dead (1968) etc...

The film opens with Ruby LaRocca in an empty laundrette. She has an hour or so to kill so she climbs up onto one of the worktops, sticks her hand down her tights and masturbates. With a few crotch shots we do get to see what lies between her legs, with a piercing shinning through. You would think she was keeping them on in case anyone should walk in. But no, she is fearless, so off with her top. The one handed action is soon over so she follows it up with a half naked catnap. I know if I as making this film and found myself with a launderette to shot in, this is exactly what I would be filming.

Suddenly in walks the janitor, a cheaply made up zombie one no doubt. He spots her and proceeds to molest her butt. This is Night of the Groping Dead, and it’s trash.

After a good feel around he then tries to penetrate her with a dirty broom handle (don’t worry its only simulated as this is a softcore film). This is enough to finally wake her up. She is chased by two more perverted zombies and is soon taken captive by non other than Marquis De Sade who it turns out is building an army of S&M zombies and is looking to recruit with LaRocca in mind. All it takes is a quick ravishing by the sex pest zombies and to have few chunks of flesh bitten off. When we next see her she has red hair and is wearing a Dawn of the Dead t-shirt. She is now an S&M zombie. She then overthrows De Sade by biting his “S&M dick” off and becomes the Queen of the zombies or something. She captures Misty Mundae, has a lesbian affair and soon forgets about world domination instead settling for moving to a trailer park, which I believe is meant to be humorous.

Made in 2001, this softcore cheapy, was left unreleased until 2008 when it featured as an extra for the DVD for An Erotic Werewolf in London (which I reviewed a few weeks back). The film is short at 48 minutes and feels somewhat incomplete, or at least they all just gave up at some point. The film is amateurish, being shot on a handheld DV camera with under lit scenes. It appears to be zero budget, shot in whatever locations they had to hand with the bare minimal spent on costumes and makeup. As the title suggests it’s inspired by zombie films such as the Night of the Living Dead series. However in no way resembling any of the plots. As soon as we see De Sade we it seems to make a complete departure and just becomes silly (not that wasn’t before that point). Instead we get a few direct references, a Dawn of the Dead t-shirt and a Night of Living Dead poster.

How about the sex? It gets as explicit as showing low angle crotch shot but with guys copping an easy feel and dibbling colossal amounts of fake blood makes this as erotic as a day old cheese sandwich. The sex is simulated with the male characters not even bothering to unzip their pants, whilst the two female actresses go full monty allowing themselves to be touched everywhere possible. The film feels at times just an excuse to have some easy feelies. To watch it’s dull and poorly made. Which is probably why it took so long to get released in the first place.

The Naked: A Psychological Film [Golasy] (2001)

Okay so this is an unusual one to review. Technically this isn’t a porn film, it just has a lot of nudity. A lot is perhaps an understatement, as the characters are nude throughout. There’s no sex at all or to quote the back of the DVD case “…they don’t fuck because this is a psychological film.” Yeah they like to make a big brew haw about it being a psychological film even making it the films sub-title.

The Naked is a Polish comedy/drama set in an office where every character happens to be naked. No mention is made about it and the story itself wouldn’t be effected even if they weren’t. But that may be the whole point. To bring something we see as provocative and bring it upfront and then ignore it to show that really it’s no big deal. 

The film concerns three women working in a dreary office together. The new girl has just started and appears to be constantly struggling with the computer, which the other two women don’t seem to see the point of. Their day consists of interruptions from salesmen and people thinking they are either a vet or bank, gossiping and talking about a soap opera. Their boss gets bitten by a possibly rabid dog, two boys come in and create havoc, chopping cables and throwing things about and some free cans of meat gets everyone excited. The new girl, who is the only one actually trying to work, also suffers from a constant stream of belittling and shouting from her co-workers for not knowing what she’s not really expected to know on her first day.

The film is just over 70 minutes long and shot on handheld digital. From the moment it starts you get a feeling of extreme cheapness, exactly like a porn film of the era. The film takes place in real time and rarely sets foot outside the small office space. The idea itself might not be exactly revolutionary since it could be essentially seen as a modern day nudist film. From the 1930s to 60s, sex and nudity in cinema was rare due to the restrictions of the Hayes code. Nudity however could be shown in documentaries and nudist films, but only if it wasn’t shown as being sexualised, merely in a cultural or lifestyle aspect. Of course nudist films found a market in those wanting an easy thrill. Unfortunately these films were terribly dull and quickly vanished as soon as the Hayes code did and a new era of erotica took its place; the nudie cutie. With The Naked it seems honest about it’s nudity. The cast haven’t be picked because they have the hottest bodies. We get a real mixture, young and old, male and female, fat and thin. Their bodies show all the wear and tear that comes with life; sagging skin, scars, body hair. We see both beautiful and ugly bodies. I feel however that the cast was more chosen not for their bodies or acting skills but rather than they agreed to shed for the camera.

The nudity is presented in a way that it shouldn’t be seen as important. So what are we left with? The story. And there’s isn’t really much of one. The film really is pretty minimalist, very much like a play. It’s really a build up of one event after the next eventually erupting into chaos. It’s actually very dull, like a nudist film. Once the novelty wears off there isn’t much left. However with a nudist film there at least was a reason for the nudity, in fact it was the whole plot. I cannot consider this a nudist film because after all this is a psychological film.