For many, the idea of yet another sequel to PSYCHO(1960) seemed unlikely after the way 1986's PSYCHO III concluded. This is the first of many discrepencies from the first three films that plauge PSYCHO IV:THE BEGINNING(1990). It is extremely unlikely that Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) could have been released from the sanitarium, although introducing an "understanding" wife who persuaded all the right people to let him out again actually does work in a strange way. But PSYCHO IV doesn't simply choose to ignore the events of PSYCHO III, as there are a couple of references to it, notably when Norman mentions those last murders four years earlier, creating yet another inconsistency : PSYCHO III took place mere weeks after PSYCHO II (1983) and therefore was NOT four years before PSYCHO IV, more like seven. Add to this that Norman said in PSYCHO II that he was twelve when he poisoned his mother. In this film he is much older when the actual act is shown, which occurs in Norma Bates's bedroom (which suddenly has a bathroom door added that wasn't there years later, another inconsistency). Finally there's the biggest contradiction of them all : the cause of Norman's father's death. Killer bees? Did Norma lie to young Norman to cover up the "love triangle" drama dealing with Norma's sister Emma Spool that resulted in this man's death? Norman would have found out about it eventually, as it was shown in PSYCHO III it was all over the local newspapers when Roberta Maxwell's character was doing the research on it. My point in all of this? The filmmakers were either careless or did screenplay writer Joseph Stefano not take the initiative to watch the other films in order to prevent plot holes? You would think that even so that Anthony Perkins, who himself had DIRECTED the previous installment would have had these errors corrected either before or during production.
As for the film itself, there are many good things. Olivia Hussey is wonderful as Norma (although she should have lost the accent; Norma wasn't British) and it is quite a thrill to actually see what the famous Victorian house looked like when it was new in the flashbacks (It was YELLOW!) Perkins is good as usual in this role and the pacing, drifting back and forth between past and present is good. It's a terrible shame that the unexplainable inconsistencies make it hard to watch. C+
As for the film itself, there are many good things. Olivia Hussey is wonderful as Norma (although she should have lost the accent; Norma wasn't British) and it is quite a thrill to actually see what the famous Victorian house looked like when it was new in the flashbacks (It was YELLOW!) Perkins is good as usual in this role and the pacing, drifting back and forth between past and present is good. It's a terrible shame that the unexplainable inconsistencies make it hard to watch. C+