Patrick

"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.

Low budget Australian affair about an obscure and remote mental "hospital" whose star patient, Patrick, forges a bloody bond with new smart and able but unsuspecting nurse Kathy Jacquard (Sharni Vinson). The opening prologue seems to promise another predictably lame slasher flick, and the entire film is a little slow to develop, yet the last half-hour or so entails some interesting and creative layers and twists. This film becomes a lot more distinct once we get to know Patrick's story. Decent all-around acting, with good performances by the three women who play the nurses: Vinson, Rachel Griffiths, and Peta Sergeant.

It seems the makers were trying to create a circa 1950 Gothic horror film set in the age of GPS with modern horror tropes (something like that). A valiant attempt, but PATRICK would have been better if it were more consistently modern. Many of the props (nurses' uniforms, etc) look unrealistically antiquated, and the outside views of the hospital. . .well, you can tell it's not an actual building. The constant rubber stamp suspense symphony soundtrack also gets a little annoying--There's just no need for it except in a few select spots. All the same, none of the various weaker points should get too much in the way if you're a big horror fan.

Some brief "incidental" nudity and a fair measure of really nasty-gory death and dismemberment. Still, PATRICK makes good use of its gore, using it briefly and shockingly.

I watched the original 1978 Patrick for the first time the other day to prepare for the remake. It was rather boring, but had that certain vague 1970s creepy charm that kept me from turning it off. I watched the 2013 remake today and was equally bored. Production values are higher this time, but this version is full of stupid CGI and annoying false scares punctuated by a shrill, awful soundtrack.

The cast are OK, although the original 1978 actor who played Patrick was far superior than the new guy who looks like a gay male model. Charles Dance is normally a wonderful actor but given nothing to do beyond a bland rehash of every other villain he's ever played. Rachel Griffiths is horribly boring as the Matron (as with Patrick himself, the 1978 original actor was much better and creepier).

The script is the main problem, just like the threadbare original. The idea of a comatose telekinetic pervert possessed by erotomania for his nurse is an interesting idea, but it's never fully developed. There's too much else going on that takes away from that relationship.

To be honest, I saw the 1980 Italian pseudo-sequel, Patrick Still Lives (aka Patrick Vive Ancora), a few years ago, and I found that ridiculous gorefest much more fun than either the original or remake. It's worth a watch just for the levitating fireplace poker scene! Another Italian film that rips off Patrick (and is full of gore) is Lucio Fulci's Aenigma.

I never saw the original one so I can only review this one without comparison. I see that the first one gets much more stars so I might watch that one as well in the future because I already liked this remake. The whole movie was not boring at all like many other horror movies. Instead I thought the storyline was well intriguing and it keeps the audience interested during the whole movie. All the actors were fine to me, nobody bothered me at all. Charles Dances as doctor Roget gave a good performance as usual. The music and sound was perfect for the suspense. Definitely a good horror/thriller to watch on a cold dark evening.

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.