Franchise Expansion (Or Implosion): ‘Psycho III’

Franchise Expansion (or Implosion) is a column that looks at franchises that have new installments or releases forthcoming. In looking at a franchise, each entry in a franchise will be given a review and then be examined as part of the bigger franchise. (i.e., Was this sequel a worthy expansion of this franchise or was it an implosion of sorts?)

There are very few films that are unquestionably considered cinematic classics. Productions that transcend genre and connect with all audiences. Some of these movies are beloved; others are infamous, and a rare few are considered both. Alfred Hitchcock‘s Psycho (1960) is one of these rare gems. But what happens when an unassailable classic becomes a franchise? Let’s check back into The Bates Motel, which is under new management with Psycho III (1986)!

Despite having nearly a quarter of a century gap between Psycho (1960) and Psycho II (1982), the unlikely sequel proved to be a huge success at the box-office. Moreover, audiences and the gorehounds within them didn’t even seem to mind that this second film was tame by the standards of most horror flicks of the 1980s. Now, while I find the reserved nature of Psycho II to be charming, it also presents any proceeding entries that would follow somewhere to go as far as tone and content are concerned, which brings me, of course, to third film. Unlike today, where sequels and cinematic universals are constantly dropped into theaters, back in the 80s, studios generally gave audiences some time between installments.

Since Universal Studios let the Psycho franchise remain dormant for so long before Norman Bates returned to make a killing at the box office, the time between Psycho II and the film in review would be much shorter; a standard sequel gap of three years as opposed to twenty-two. Universal was so confident that they offered series star Anthony Perkins (1932-1992) the opportunity to pull double duty as actor and director on this threequel. Not that Perkins was incapable at the helm, mind you, but a studio rarely gives an actor who has never directed a crack at doing so. This speaks to the confidence Universal had in the Psycho franchise at the time. Even still, the studio took pause when Perkins announced he wanted to shoot the film in black-and-white in an exciting homage to Hitchcock and his original film. Unsurprisingly though, Universal shut that idea down.

Be it the studio’s decision or Perkins’, genre screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue (DragonHeart, Kull the Conqueror) was brought in to help craft the story for this third entry in the series, which Perkins wanted to embrace the pulpy elements of horror at the time. Picking up a mere month after its predecessor, Psycho III finds Norman Bates (Perkins) again as the rightful owner and proprietor of his namesake roadside motel. Alas, as tends to happen, life gets ahead of Norman, who already has trouble holding on to what little sanity he may have left. He can’t run The Bates Motel alone, so he recruits a young aspiring rockstar and resident scumbag, Duane (Jeff Fahey), who will surely bring him nothing but trouble.

Norman is distracted, though, from whatever trouble his new employee may cause thanks to a guest who almost literally stumbles onto the motel grounds. A young former nun named Maureen Coyle (Diana Scarwid) recently abandoned her convent and is in need of shelter. As fate would have it, the nun who just dropped the habit resembles one Marion Crane (Janet Leigh in archival footage); thus, Norman is instantly smitten with Maureen. But she also sets off Norman (or his mother’s) homicidal impulses. To make matters even worse, an investigative reporter named Tracy (Roberta Maxwell) is in town and seems a little too keen on doing a story on Norman. And before long, bodies start piling up again at The Bates Motel.

From the opening off-screen scream of “There is no God!”, Psycho III announces it will be a much different, even darker picture than its predecessors — a nasty little piece of work. As a director, Perkins intentionally goes into a much more pronounced slasher/exploitation film arena. In choosing this tone, the director stays true to it visually. Although Perkins stated in interviews that he felt he needed to gain the technical prowess for directing, I find him very pointed and adept in his directorial approach here. He cited Blood Simple (1984), the debut film of Joel and Ethan Coen, as the visual and tonal inspiration for his directing. And to his credit, Perkins nails this style, albeit through imitation. Also, Blood Simple is the superior film. But if you’re going to take inspiration for your directorial debut, why not take it from a fantastic first film by a pair of respected filmmakers?

As far as style and tonal approaches go, I feel Perkins’ instincts as a director are mostly on the money for what he wanted to do with Psycho III, and he indeed achieves what he set out to do. Furthermore, he directs his cast to deliver competent performances, including his own, which is notably weaker than the previous entries. Perhaps the most memorable performance in the film is that of Fahey. Perkins’ only real misstep at the helm is his insistence on a contemporary musical score. Despite the studio’s objections, Perkins hired Carter Burwell (Blood Simple and most of The Coen Brothers work). In adhering to his director’s instruction, the score is nothing like the rest of Burwell’s work, but it’s uniquely 80s in the most bonkers way. So much so, in fact, that the score doesn’t quite fit the film itself.

Despite Perkins’ best efforts, Psycho III ultimately falls short and is a Franchise Implosion. While leaning into the gorier elements of the genre could have worked, the screenplay for this film needs to be more, and its pacing issues don’t help. Also, unlike most horror franchises, the Psycho series needs interesting and at least somewhat likable characters to succeed. As I mentioned earlier, Norman is the only likable character here. Unless you also want to count Maureen, who functions more as a catalyst than a character. As a result, it becomes hard for the film to maintain proper momentum despite its tight 93-minute runtime.

But, even if Psycho III didn’t quite cut it for me, Universal was initially very pleased with it. Upon turning in the final cut of the film, the studio tasked Perkins and Pough with developing a pitch for a fourth film. After Psycho III‘s poor reception at the box office — the film only grossed $14.4 million worldwide, making it the lowest-grossing theatrically released film in the franchise — the studio shelved the idea of doing another sequel anytime soon. Eventually, that would change with the release of Psycho IV: The Beginning in 1990, released directly to Showtime Networks as a made-for-cable TV movie.

Psycho III is available on Digital HD, Blu-ray & DVD.