Patrick

Following the success of Brian De Palma's 'Carrie' in 1976, movies featuring psycho-kinetics became all the rage. In 1978, Hollywood cashed in with 'The Fury' (also by De Palma) and the Richard Burton vehicle 'The Medusa Touch'; US TV gave us 'The Initiation of Sarah'; and even Disney got in on the act with 'Return from Witch Mountain'. Meanwhile, in Australia, director Richard Franklin joined in the craze with his creepy, offbeat chiller 'Patrick'.

Susan Penhaligon stars as Kathy Jacquard, a pretty nurse who discovers that her new comatose patient Patrick (Robert Thompson) is not only capable of communicating via psychokinesis (and the occasional bit of spitting!), but is also able to kill. As Patrick gradually begins to fall for Kathy, any other man hoping to get close to her automatically becomes a target of his awesome mental powers.

To feature a malign character who spends 99.9% of the film's running time absolutely motionless, staring into space, is an unusual, but very effective idea, and one that director Franklin cleverly uses to crank up the tension: his audience know damn well that Patrick will move at some point in the film, but have absolutely no idea when it will occur (I jumped twice: first, when Patrick unexpectedly spits at his nurse, and... well... you'll definitely know the other moment when it happens).

There are those who may find the slow-burn approach of this movie a little laborious, but I loved its leisurely approach—particularly as it gave me time to fully appreciate the movie's more bizarre moments: Kathy's job interview, during which the hospital's Matron mentions that such a job attracts certain 'types' (lesbians, scoptophiliacs, necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs and enema specialists!!); two scenes in which frogs don't do so well (one has his brain smushed with a needle and another is eaten by a doctor); Kathy attempting to prove that Patrick can feel by giving him a little 'wrist action'; and repeated appearances by Patrick's 'neighbour', a crazy old man who wets himself.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

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.

This is a real surprise. I only heard of this film through the OZ documentary, 'Not Hollywood' and picked it up for pence, but it is very good indeed.

Susan Penhaligon has a lot to do in the lead role as she struggles to communicate with the 'dead' hospital patient, Patrick.

Some real suspense, a little nudity and gore but excellent dialogue and a throbbing storyline that maintains a strong interest throughout.

Robert Thompson is the poor guy who has to play dead or near dead through the whole film but does a really good job and those eyes, even to the end. Great stuff!

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.

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.