Which Is Better: Psycho 2 or 3?

I prefer II but I don't think III was bad. I just felt that the first sequel was more suspenseful and the direction was tighter. However, I have to give Anthony Perkins credit for directing III because I really think he understood Norman Bates better than anyone. And he was an extremely intelligent, artistic and creative person, and that shows in the second sequel. And his sense of humor is more evident in III, for obvious reasons.

I like Diana Scarwid a lot, but for some reason I wasn't feeling the chemistry between her and Perkins. Meg Tilly seemed to have a better dynamic with Perkins, even though the two actors didn't get along. And Jeff Fahey was a good asset to III, although it would have been interesting to see how it would have been if Perkins' original script for the movie would have worked out onscreen.

Of the Psycho sequels, IV is the weakest, but not terrible. But I think Perkins and Joesph Stefano should have paid more attention to details, because the plot holes in that one are glaringly obvious.

II was the better written of the sequels but I think III had better direction.
________________________
I feel that II was both better written and directed. The examples you have used for III, wouldn't these scenes you mentioned have more to do with what was written in the script rather than the actual direction of them? There is an interesting visual flair and creepy atmosphere about the film, but I feel much of that is due to the gifted cinematographer Bruce Surtees. I found Perkins also gave a much better more controlled performance in II. He appeared much more self conscious about himself in III and comes over as more tongue in cheek; like a tease.

I am not so certain if his direction of his leading lady Diana Scarwid was that great either and she probably shouldn't have even been cast in the first place. PSYCHO III clocks in at approx 20mins shorter than II, yet to me, it comes over heavier and more plodding—hence less involving. I am not intending to undermine Perkins directorial contribution to the film; but compared to II, I personally don't find it as impressive or as effectual.