Would Hitchcock approve of this? In general you can say: No. Why? Because he apparently did not like Sequels to his movies (maybe not in general either?). But when this was made, so many years after the original, Hitch was not around to object. And he could have since he had the rights to the original. Something that may not be too common, but was the case, because he did not get as much money as he wanted, but instead could have more rights to the movie, which in the end proved essential.
Now, would this make sense if Perkins did not reprise his iconic role? I would argue that it would have not. There were some initial doubts, but fortunately he came back. There is a bit of a twist and there are quite a few callbacks to the Original. Of course catching lightning in the bottle is not possible. But it is still a valid story and a good continuation.
If you are a fan of the original, I don't think you will be too dissapointed in this (as most have been with the other sequels). But one thing is for sure: Perkins seems to be born to play this role ...
Now, would this make sense if Perkins did not reprise his iconic role? I would argue that it would have not. There were some initial doubts, but fortunately he came back. There is a bit of a twist and there are quite a few callbacks to the Original. Of course catching lightning in the bottle is not possible. But it is still a valid story and a good continuation.
If you are a fan of the original, I don't think you will be too dissapointed in this (as most have been with the other sequels). But one thing is for sure: Perkins seems to be born to play this role ...