Psycho vs. Psycho

In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock introduced one of the most influential killer thriller's of the 20th century.  Of any century really.  Psycho.  This film currently has a %99 on rottentomatoes.com for you film critics.  In 1998, director Gus Van Sant made the equivalent of a carbon copy of Hitchcock's original, beloved horror classic.  This film, which completely replicated everything Hitchcock did from angles to the way in which the actors performed their lines.  This film currently has a %36 on rottentomatoes.com.  That's a hell of a difference between two films which are arguably the exact same...save for the fact that one's in color and the other's eerily in black and white.

What does this say about replicating art in Benjamin's essay?  According to him, "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element:  its presence in time and space" (1234).  What does this mean?  Just because Hitchcock made his in 1960 it's suddenly better than the exact same film made in 1998?  Maybe.  He elaborates on the reproduced work of art and claims that the "quality of it's presence is always depreciated" (1235).  The vast difference between the success of the films demonstrates how complicated the relationship is between the original and its replica.  It makes me wonder if there's every a way in which replication can be accomplished in a positive light.