Patrick

Saw this in it's limited run in Melbourne. The movie is quite strange and has just the right amount of creepy to keep you entertained for the entire running time, but I feel this should've added a prequel element to make the obsessiveness work better.

The acting was great, and the film is pretty average, but if you are into these psychological films than you'd probably enjoy it more than I did.

Sharni Vinson is great as the leading lady and new nurse at the hospital, and she always has this believability about her which is great. Rachel Griffiths was also fantastic as the head nurse and every time she popped up you wanted to find out what the deal is with her being so cold and black hearted.

"Patrick" was actually a rather interesting movie. Having read the synopsis and seen that Charles Dance was in this movie, then it just seemed like the type of horror movie that you need to watch.

The storyline in the movie is what makes "Patrick" interesting, because it does have some nice aspects to it. Now, the movie wasn't particularly scary as per se, but there was a fulfilling storyline that was coherent and well-thought through.

There was something dark and brooding to the entire movie, perhaps it was the atmosphere of the old house that the movie was shot it. I don't know. But it worked out quite nicely.

The story in "Patrick" is about nurse Kathy (played by Sharni Vinson) who comes to work for Dr. Roget (played by Charles Dance) and his daughter Cassidy (played by Rachel Griffiths) at a secluded house where the doctor is running unauthorized and experimental treatments on comatose and braindead patients, trying to bring life back into their minds. The patient Patrick turns out to harbor a dark secret that quickly puts Kathy in a life or death situation.

I will say that the people on the cast list were doing good jobs, and the characters were really nicely portrayed and detailed, which really helped the movie along quite nicely.

However, I was missing more scares and generally a more spooky movie, and as such then I am rating "Patrick" a 5 out of 10 stars.

I don't know why so many filmmakers fail to grasp the concept that sometimes less is more.

This remake of "Patrick" is a good example. The whole movie has an amateurish look, simply due to the use of a color filter to give it a 'dark', 'greyish' atmosphere. It just looked ridiculously fake. As did the rain filter, the CGI lift shaft shot, the car headlights and so on.

Editing was terrible too. As a matter of fact, everything about this movie was bad, the exception being Pino Donaggio's score (which was not great either, but at least acceptable).

As for the cast, Charles Dance does what he can, but the poorly written screenplay does not help things much.

And don't even get me started on the final jump 'scares'...

Patrick (1978) is a unique horror film from Australia, written by Everett De Roche who brought us three of Australia's most unusual and imaginative "exploitation" era horror films, The Long Weekend (1978) and its superb 2008 remake Nature's Grave (formerly reviewed here), Harlequin (1980), and Razorback (1984). In the 1978 film, bug-eyed Patrick is a catatonic mental hospital patient with a disturbing countenance and an even more disturbed psyche.

Through telekinesis, Patrick embarks on a one-sided romance with his pert, sympathetic caregiver, Nurse Kathy after she determines that he's not brain dead despite her administrators' claims to the contrary. How does Kathy figure this out? You must watch the movie to see it for yourself. Her strategy is surely lifted from a twisted scene in Dalton Trumbo's horrifying and controversial 1971 anti-war drama, Johnny Got His Gun.

Jealous of Kathy's paramours, and threatened by the hospital's director who has designs on him for sick experimentation, Patrick wreaks havoc by maliciously employing his special abilities. The idea isn't new; we saw it in the 1953 sci-fi movie, Donovan's Brain, based on Curt Siodmak's classic horror novel, about the possession of a scientific researcher by a willful tycoon, who exists as a brain kept alive in a laboratory tank.

In Patrick, Richard Franklin, who went on to direct Jamie Lee Curtis and Stacey Keach in the eerie Aussie, two-lane blacktop odyssey, Road Games (1981), and then brought us Psycho II (1983), does a pretty good job with this offbeat psychic concept by crafting Patrick into a straight- forward, memorable horror movie. The film was well-produced on a small budget, and despite a few flaws, withstands the test of time. Thirty six years later it's still a tensely compelling, watchable horror flick.

So why remake it?

With some exceptions, horror-movie re-dos often leave something to be desired. There have been a few good ones though. Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978) and The Thing (1982) come to mind. Without losing any of the charm of the originals, these subsequent shoots effectively capture the essences of their predecessors. New technology allowed graphic, frightening special effects. But importantly, the new versions of these films don't rely on showcasing new technology. They were made to better communicate their respective stories, and the improved production techniques enhanced, rather than replaced, solid literary devices.

Sometimes however, horror movies lose something in translation when they're updated to a modern context and to our contemporary values. To skirt the problem of predictability, filmmakers frequently alter the endings. This can be a bad idea, because the scriptwriters usually got it right the first time. Changes tend to either miss the point entirely, or lose the impact of the original.

The remake of Planet Of The Apes (1968) is a good example of a movie with a second-rate, amended climax. It simply can't compare to one of the most dramatic endings ever in American cinema, when in the 1968 film, astronaut Taylor (Charleton Heston) rounds a bend on a desolate beach and comes face to face with the wreckage of a famous idol from his past. That one, now iconic, chilling frame instantly and powerfully communicates the ironic, emotional thrust of the entire film.

Wonderfully, documentarian Mark Hartley's 2013 revamping of Patrick, entitled Patrick: Evil Awakens, is a positive departure from the trend of lame remakes. The new version is faithful to the original, but subtly tightens up the script, introducing credible character motivations, and tweaking the timing to build additional suspense. With a bigger budget and modern cinematic tools, the new Patrick is sleek, tight, and appropriately much darker and creepy. Italian horror composer Pino Donaggio whose credits include Brian de Palma's Carrie (1976) and Nic Roeg's Don't Look Now (1973) contributes a sharp, sassy score.

The refinements do Patrick justice in a way which demonstrates that Hartley is a true aficionado of the first version, and not merely going through the motions to execute a more marketable update. While this 2013 edition succumbs to a few stock conventions such as the use of dramatic orchestrations to inflate non-crucial surprises, the movie is a top- notch, general consumption chiller. Patrick: Evil Awakens is genuinely scary, rich with gloomy atmosphere and eerie tension, but free of camp, and doesn't insult your intelligence.

Patrick is a Australian remake of an earlier Aussie horror film of the same name, which I haven't seen. This is a pretty average par for the course horror effort involving a comatose young man with telekinetic powers and his involvement with a nurse, played by a convincing Sharni Vinson, who is first trying to care for him and later trying to escape his psychic stalking of her. It and the original were clearly influenced by the mid-70's success of Brian de Palma's adaption of Stephen King's Carrie. Charles Dance seems to be getting used to this "B" grade stuff he keeps showing up in and Rachel Griffiths literally sleepwalks through her role.

All straight up but I need to talk about the sets, settings and costumes.

I have no idea why film-maker's don't use more logic when structuring their storylines. In this film, unsuspecting nurse Kathy gets a job at a private psychiatric hospital, whose patients are all comatose due to a variety of trauma. All good. But why doesn't the hospital look like a hospital? It is dark and dirty. And there are only ever 4 staff seen to service at least 12 different patients! 1 doctor and 3 nurses! How do you work out a 24/7 staff roster with only 4 staff members? Where's the orderlies, receptionists, accounts people, cleaning and kitchen staff? And why doesn't anyone ever think to turn on a light. Why are the nurses wearing uniforms that went out of fashion 50 years ago? Kathy, as we suspect turns out to be a bit of a bright, independent spark. But given the state of the hospital, I couldn't ever see her accepting a job there in a million years, especially with the welcome we see her receive. It's just extremely lazy story-telling. Chances are if the director had set everything up more realistically, the audience would be more likely to be engaged with the film, rather than the general sense of deja vue, many like me would experience, even allowing, we may not have seen the original.

Speaking of Kathy and reality, she must be exceedingly resilient. Late in the film we see her tossed through a glass bathroom shower screen. The gory result is that we see her writhing on the floor, after suffering multiple abrasions and a huge cut on her forearm, which would require mega-stitching at the very least, as you might expect. Yet the very next scene we see her in, she's rushed back to the hospital, not a mark on her, seemingly suffering no inconvenience from the blood-splattered injuries she'd just previously endured. It's like the director and script-writer have agreed, that we used her in that last gory scene, but we need her for the next one too, so we'll hope no one notices or cares.

This is exactly the reason movies like Patrick are such "B" grade fare and will always continue to be, whilst lackadaisical filming techniques such as outlined above, are employed.