Glad for a review to show I'm not psycho for seeing this movie as an "experiment". I saw it though as an observation of movie-making in the early 60's verses the late 90's and questioning the idea of ANY movie being considered "timeless". Van Sant's version demonstrated how "dated" Hitchcock's had become, even though the newer was practically the exact same. I always found it ironic also that both movies made about the same amount of box office - though Hitchcock's was a huge hit but by the late 90's that amount was flop level. Movies are ultimately made for the relevancy of the audience of their time. That they become something considered "timeless" is an utter fluke and any moviemaker that thinks they're creating something lasting with certainty is ultimately just - well, a little mad.