Patrick

I didn't know Aussies were making horror films like this in the late 70s, full of visual imagination and inventive direction. Aussie horror flicks are rare enough as it is, but genuinely good ones are a rarity, I am sad to say.

Patrick is one of the rare good ones, and it is a seriously underappreciated film. The titular character is a young man in a coma, shocked into inactivity by the death of his mother. He is, according to all medical tests, clinically dead, kept alive only by machines. The new nurse, however, thinks otherwise. Is there something going on behind that vacant face? Something evil? ...and powerful?

The first thing that struck me, mere seconds into the film, was the wonderful camera work and direction. Richard Franklin, who later went on to direct the also-underappreciated Psycho II, did an amazing job. On the topic of Psycho, it is obvious that he was a fan of Hitchcock - there are many visual tributes to Psycho and other Hitchcock films.

Made on a shoestring, as all Aussie films are, but especially horror films, it features only the most basic of optical, on-set, and make-up effects, but the way in which the cast takes them seriously lends them far more weight than they would otherwise carry.

Speaking of the cast, they are uniformly excellent, especially the sublime and sadly missed Sir Robert Helpmann - more famous for his dancing than his acting, he was never the less a greatly-respected cornerstone of 70s and 80s Australian cinema. While the rest of the cast are very good, it is Helpmann who really carries the film, exuding class and professionalism even while being flung about on strings and wrestling with a rubber axe.

Patrick is an effective thriller, which transcends its miniscule budget and makes good on its rather lofty ambitions. If you don't mind Aussie accents in your cheaply-made supernatural thrillers, I recommend it highly.

I remember seeing ads on TV for 'Patrick' back in the 1970s, but for some reason I never actually watched it until I recently rented it on DVD. I expected it to be laughably bad, but instead I was pleasantly surprised. It's a reasonably effective thriller, with a few excellent scenes. Director Richard Franklin obviously has a Hitchcock fetish, he later went on to direct the better-than-you-think 'Psycho 2'. I believe the American DVD has a commentary from Franklin, but the Australian one I watched doesn't. But you don't need him to point out the Hitchcock homages throughout. Okay, 'Patrick' isn't perfect. It's made on a very low budget, and the effects are nothing to write home about, but the script and acting aren't too bad. I do agree that Robert Thompson who plays Patrick isn't very convincing. Better casting could have improved the movie a lot. However Susan Penhaligon is good, and pretty cute to boot.

After killing his mother and her lover by electrocution. Patrick is now in a coma, where he has been bed-ridden for the past three years in a private hospital. The reason for him being kept on life support is that the doctor in charge; Dr. Roget is using him in the experiment into exploring the territory between life and death. Kathy a new nurse arrives and the first job she is given is to look after Patrick. While, the other staff might not see it, Kathy starts to realize that Patrick has psychokinetic powers, which he uses to manipulate things to his likings.

This is one film I've always been pushing aside, but I finally took the chance and seeing a couple of favourable reviews also helped. "Patrick" I found to be an interesting genre piece that was above-average compared to most low-budget and knock-off horror flicks. But again it didn't entirely wow me altogether, but still the film really does string you along with it's slow grinding suspense and slick execution. There are some effective scenes that are illustrated with great skill, but the suspense comes mostly from the thoroughly, taut script. Which, it does comes rather thick in. If you're looking for any blood, you'll be highly disappointed as this centres around the psychological nature than anything psychical. There are some minor acts of violence with the most damaging sight being done to a frog, but it focus more so on the aftermath and rallying the suspense through the surprising developments. The subtle plot has some unique details where little hints and suggestiveness are build up in key areas. The back-story surrounding Patrick is interestingly, involving and we're given time with most of the characters. But it might be too slow for some tastes. I actually thought they could've tighten the film down from its two hour running time, because at times it did kind of linger. Director Richard Franklin also brings to the table influences from Hitchcock, but also he adds some masterstrokes to his self-assured and patient handling of the picture. The professional cinematography plays around with some sharp moving shots and on show is a multi-layered score that plunges you into the deep end. The unknown cast are more than adequate with a strong lead performance by Susan Penhaligon as Kathy and Robert Thompson's appearance is creepy when they cut to him laying in bed as the vegetable Patrick. Robert Helpmann also is decent enough as Dr. Roget and rest of the supporting cast deliver fine performances.

Overall, "Patrick" follows a familiar pattern, but its done quite well.

FINALLY! The complete Australian language version of Richard Franklin's gem from 1978!

An enigmatic young man kills his mother, then somehow winds up in a coma in a private hospital. Enter the pretty young nurse who discovers Patrick has capabilities no one seems to know about, or want to admit they know about. For those that are thrill seekers, this film is not a fast-paced, action-packed story. BUT, for those of us that appreciate characters over wild thrills and enjoy careful buildups to a final reveal, this one is nicely done. There IS a reason it was an initial success and has gained a big cult following; people understood Franklin's intentions.

Sure, Patrick is not grand "cinema," but it's a nice mystery/love story with great performances, a keen sense of humour ("self-referential humour" as it has been described), and some rather strong adult content & nudity for what was supposed to be a PG-rated film, even in the altered version for American audiences back in 1978. I first saw it theatrically and was surprised by its content, but appreciated the homages to Hitchcock (which Franklin carefully points out in many scenes on the DVD's commentary track), and Brian May's score has a nice hermann-esque feel (I'm a proud owner of this score on vinyl). I was only disappointed that it was dubbed with American actors, which dummies down a film -- just take a peek at the dubbed version of Anatomy (aka Anatomie). Finally seeing this film in the original Australian language version on DVD made me like this film a lot more 25 years later.

While this film is not extremely original, it still provides enough intrigue for those who look deeper into films that the general public would brush off. Patrick could be considered an acquired taste, so those who are familiar with it and liked it will find the Elite DVD a very satisfying purchase and a nice surprise to see it in its original form. Others be warned, you might stick with more familiar "blockbuster hits." But realize, when films are pushed as "the hottest releases," you know something might be lacking and that it's processed for mass-friendly consumption. At least the Australian audiences did accept this film back then, and it won recognition. I'd like to think I was one of the Americans that understood why they found this film to be so great!

I think that some commentators expected far too much from this movie. For a "no-budget" film, you can't expect great special effects. Look at how much "Twilight Zone" achieved on a tiny budget; what a caning it got from "the critics", and then look at its popular success.

I see much the same here. After all, the only "special effect" really required was the typewriter typing all by itself! Weird it is - but then it's supposed to be. And slow, too: isn't that the whole point of a "suspense" movie?

In my opinion, it builds on its initial premise (the development of "mental" powers when physical ones don't exist) reasonably well, and achieves its objectives quite well. It's not "Star Wars" or even "Sixth Sense", but it never intended to be.