Sorry, but Zemeckis is no Hitchcock.<br /><br />This movie paid great homage to other films (see others' reviews) and had several unsettling and subtly horrific shots, but was otherwise pretty bland fare. I recommend waiting till it comes out on video so you can fast forward past the many uninteresting and unnecessary filler scenes. By the time the tension actually increases, you may find yourself waaaay past caring.<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer gave a good and varied performance (much better than in 'Wolf'), in contrast to Harrison Ford's humdrum husband. Which is interesting, since 'Norman' was supposed to be a 'brilliant' scientist. He did nothing in the film to even be considered 'bright', IMO. He seemed very tranquilized (yawn) until the "hahahahaha, I'm a killer and you're next" bit. I'll take Anthony Perkins or even Vince Vaughn's 'Norman' any day of the week compared to this passive loser.<br /><br />The film wasn't awful, but several things made me chuckle out of sheer disbelief. The first time Claire sees the ghost in the bathtub, before Norman runs in after her scream, it takes what, 5 seconds for the whole tub to drain! Then, later, it takes forever for the water to drain past her nose when her magic toes pull up the plug. And what faucet do you know that will cut 80% of the water supply after only a quarter turn? It wouldn't have been as laughable if the ghost had been involved, but this was not even hinted at . . . and the cliche's continued . . .<br /><br />This movie took forever to advance the plot, and the silly, obvious red herring involving the next-door neighbors was pretty irritating.<br /><br />The slow pace of the film felt like the dredging of a lake bottom. Too bad the film's body didn't surface a little sooner.