Critical response
Variety deemed the film "an impressive, 23-years-after followup to Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 suspense classic". Vincent Canby of The New York Times wrote that the film "has all of the characteristics of a conventional sequel to Hitchcock's 1960 classic but, as you watch it, you may feel as if you're seeing a couple of precocious film students play with artifacts found in the Hitchcock mausoleum". Gary Arnold, writing for The Washington Post, was less laudatory, referring to the film as "a travesty masquerading as a sequel...if Franklin had any respect for the source material, he might feel a little protective and avoid outrages as conceptually, as well as literally, nasty as the treatment of Vera Miles' character. Psycho II transforms her once sympathetic, heroic supporting role into a hateful bit part and then kills her off with a revoltingly obscene flourish. Has movie storytelling broken down this grotesquely in 23 years?"
Roger Ebert wrote that, while the film sustained the suspenseful atmosphere of the original and is better than the average slasher film, the film was too heavy on the plot and was too willing to cheat about its plot to be successful. Roger & Gene Siskel agreed the film was well-made but also gave it thumbs-down reviews on their TV show, ultimately also agreeing that it was not really a necessary film. A review published in the Detroit Free Press praised the film as "jumpy fun" and "another cult film in the making".
Christopher John reviewed Psycho II in Ares Magazine #15 and commented that "the real importance of Psycho II rests in its originality. Refusing to be just a blood-letting free-for-all, the picture goes to great lengths to create an entirely new story".
C.J. Henderson reviewed Psycho II for Fantasy Gamer magazine and stated that "There is, in the final analysis, nothing to complain about in this film, It is faithful to the original. Franklin has done his utmost to recreate a Hitchcockian mood in his directions, as has Goldsmith in recapturing Bernard Herrmann's famous, frightening soundtrack, Perkins' performance is flawless, generating sympathy for the character. He is so believably Norman Bates again that the film takes on the quality of a documentary, rather than a mere suspense picture. By the film's end, he convinces us that it is the world which is insane, not Norman, and that Norman would have been better off had he stayed locked away from it. The filmmakers have cast a shadow over the society we live in. Psycho II is far more than most people expected it to be."
Film scholar John Kenneth Muir praised the film's depiction of Bates in "human, realistic terms", deeming it "admirably frank and sincere" and "a great film on its own merits". In Empire, film critic Kim Newman gave the film three out of five stars, calling Psycho II "a smart, darkly-comic thriller with some imaginative twists. The wittiest dark joke is that the entire world wants Norman to be mad, and 'normality' can only be restored if he's got a mummified mother in the window and is ready to kill again".
On Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, it holds an approval rating of 67% and an average rating of 5.70/10 based on 39 reviews. The site's critics consensus states: "Although it can't hold a cleaver to the classic original, Psycho II succeeds well enough on its own merits to satisfy horror fans." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 54 out of 100, based on 13 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.
When asked his thoughts in 2015, writer Tom Holland replied: "We should have called it something other than Psycho, because it had no more than a passing resemblance to the original. What we did to Norman Bates and Lila Loomis was criminal". He added: "Outside of that, it was wonderful".
Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino has said this was Perkins' best performance of his career. Tarantino also said he prefers the sequel to the original film.
