User reviews

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.

The nurse Kathy Jacquard (Sharni Vinson) travels to an isolated psychiatric clinic seeking a new job to forget her former boyfriend Ed Penhaligon (Damon Gameau). She is interviewed by the chief of the nurses Matron Cassidy (Rachel Griffiths) and by Doctor Roget (Charles Dance) and he asks Cassidy to hire her. Kathy befriends Nurse Williams (Peta Sergeant) that introduces her friend Brian Wright (Martin Crewes) to her.

Kathy feels attracted by the comatose patient Patrick (Jackson Gallagher), who is the guinea pig in cruel and unethical experiments of Dr. Roget. She also learns that Patrick actually feels the external stimulus inflicted by Dr. Roget. Further she finds a means to communicate with Patrick and soon she discovers that he has the power of telekinesis. Kathy decides to help Patrick that becomes obsessed for her. Patrick uses his ability to harm and kill everyone close to Kathy and she realizes that he is an evil threat that must be destroyed. Will it be possible?

"Patrick" is an average horror movie with a story that entwines a mad scientist in a hospital with telekinesis. The plot recalls those movies from the 70's and 80's and I found that it is a remake of an unknown 1978 Australian flick. This movie entertains but is absolutely forgettable. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Patrick, O Despertar do Mal" ("Patrick, The Awakening of the Evil")

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 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 (2013)

I saw Patrick (1978) early November for first time and I thought it was really good, it was slow burner, it was creepy and it had decent scare's in that movie.

(I even seen the sequel/remake or spin off or what ever what to call it. the Patrick vive ancora (1980) Which I had mixed feeling for.

Everything that I liked about the first movie, well in this movie it was total the opposite it, there were few new scene add here and there, it felt like the same movie all over, almost scene from scene remake.

From the class breaks to the burning hands and the death were all the same even down to last scarce scene in movie (In original that scared the hell out me) This movie this went into silliness and none of the scenes didn't have the same effects

I did not like the person who played Patrick, he did not fit role at all, Patrick in (1978) was much more creepy with his eyes and didn't need some really red eyes effects, which was not scary

There are far to many fake jumps scenes , there about 7 in one scenes, one after another, I was bored, saw everyone one them coming.

The acting was decent but not great!

4 out of 10

"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 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.

One needs to see both the original 1978 movie and the 2013 version to appreciate the links between the 2 movies. The opening shot of the Franklin Institute was in fact the hospital which appeared in the 1978 version. Throughout the movie, Roget listens to the Brian May score from the 1978 movie in his earphones. Rod Mullinar (Ed in 1978) is now Morris, Roget's boss. Maria Mercedes (Nurse Panicale in 1978) is now the Doctor treating Ed's burns. Ed Jacquard is now renamed Ed Penhaligon. (Susan Penhaligon played the 1978 Kathy Jacquard). In 2013 Patrick's surname is Thompson. (Robert Thompson played the original Patrick). After Brian's hand is cut by the shattering wine glass he goes to Emergency at the Royal Helpmann Base Hospital. (Robert Helpmann played the 1976 Roget). The pace and editing in the 2013 movie is fast, tight and at times frenetic. Coupled with Donaggio's full-on score and the overall production, set and lighting design we are at all times drawn into and often confronted by the bizarre, visually explicit elements making this almost a homage to the "grande guignol". A delightfully fun movie, particularly for those familiar with Antony Ginnane's original treatment of the work.

"Patrick" is a remake of the classic 1978 film of the same name. This updated telling of the somber, clinical horror is directed by Mark Hartley and stars Charles Dance, Rachel Griffiths, Sharni Vinson, Peta Sergeant, Damon Gameau, Martin Crewes. "Patrick" is the story of a young man in a coma who is the subject of a mad scientist's cruel and unusual experiments. When Kathy Jacquard, a young nurse, begins working at the isolated psychiatric facility under Dr. Roget, she becomes fascinated with Patrick and soon the comatose man begins showing signs of supernatural abilities.

The story in "Patrick" is a really dark, nefarious tale of mad science and extreme circumstance. "Patrick" takes on the most colorful of urban myths where cold, calculative doctors explore scientific discovery and notoriety at the behest of the helpless patient. It is the core of most nightmares surrounding hospitals, clinics and mental institutions. So "Patrick" is a story that should please any horror fan. This film offers the same evenly-paced melancholy with a bit of unease as the classic version, but the updated look and feel give more edge to the film. There isn't a big change to the story or situations in this remake generally speaking which normally would make a remake pointless and boring but with "Patrick" there is still that creepy, since of dread and chilling coldness that the original film held.

The acting in "Patrick" is pretty standard for a film with a nice enough budget. The actors are all well known from various other ventures and their ability to give life to the characters shows on screen. This film doesn't demand to much depth or complexity of character and the director doesn't offer anymore than what the original story called for which works but at times kind of gives the film that whole "going through the motions" sort of vibe. Still the actors offer believable, solid performances and the dramatic overture to their interactions presents a traditional macabre performance.

The special effects and soundtrack used in "Patrick" is tight, much like the acting, with plenty of creative gruesomeness. The kill scenes aren't as visceral as most modern horror films tend to be but they work and offer enough blood-n-guts goodness to satisfy. The suspense isn't really as strong as I would have like, especially considering it is a remake of such a notable cult classic. Maybe cause I saw the original more than once this film just seemed like a "basic" update which isn't saying anything bad about it, it just would have been nice to see the extra effort made to shock and thrill those of us who where familiar with the original-offer a modern, fresh atmosphere of fright. The soundtrack is eerie enough but still much like the shock factor it doesn't really heighten the suspenseful nature or chilling overcast of the film. That being said "Patrick" is an entertaining, creepy film that manages to breathe new life in a horror story classic.

Patrick (2013)

** (out of 4)

A nurse (Shami Vinson) begins a new job and one of her duties is to look after Patrick, a young man in a coma. Soon the nurse begins to think that Patrick is trying to communicate with her and before long she realizes that it's something much worse.

The 1978 Australian film PATRICK turned 25-years-old and how did they celebrate it? Why, of course, they made a rather bland remake! I actually watched this remake back-to-back with the original, which is something I rarely do. There's really not too many original things on display here as this is one of those remakes that amps up the violence and gore and also throws in a lot more bad jump scares.

In my review of the original film I said it was a tad bit too slow at times and ran too long. This remake tries to fix both of those problems but the non-stop dream sequences and fake jump scares were just annoying and got very boring after a while. Another problem with this remake is that the relationship between the nurse and Patrick just never feels all that believable. In the original film it helped sell the story but that's not the case here.

The performances are quite good with Vinson, Rachel Griffiths and Damon Gameau doing a nice job. Charles Dance is also good in his role. Jackson Gallagher isn't really given much to do except sit around looking cute. He certainly doesn't have the same impact as the actor in the original film but I will put the blame on the filmmakers.

PATRICK isn't an awful movie but it is quite pointless.

I only watched "Patrick" because I admire Charles Dance so much. Dance is his usual competent self--but I can't shake the impression that he just wasn't really engaged with the project. We all have to pay the light bill, I suppose. I just hope he got his money up front and in cash.

I don't know who to blame for the excessive use of traditional scary movie devices: creepy lighting, suspenseful music, heavy breathing, squeaky sound effects, startling surprises abound. These devices are so overused that less than fifteen minutes in, all they generated in me were yawns. Cumulatively, the overuse makes the picture seem amateurish.

I've seen that in general the reviews of "Patrick" have been good. I don't like horror/suspense film and only watched this one because Charles Dance was in it. Consequently, I'm willing to concede that my opinion is of little use to that genre's fans. But to those who might want to see their favorite actors, as I did, my advice is to skip "Patrick."

So very disappointing. You have Charles Dance and Rachel Griffith. Actors really don't get any better. Then you have that ludicrous soundtrack! Why? Why? By themselves with a poor script and limited budget, both Dance and Griffith would be riveting! Who was the imbecile that signed off on that soundtrack? Great setting, believable story line and then that moronic soundtrack.

Whoever is responsible should be outlawed from the movie business. The director should be castigated. Charles Dance and Rachel Griffith, really, what was the director thinking? One simply has to focus the movie entirely on them, no directing, just improvisation by both. That's how good they are.

It's impossible to find any other actor that does what Charles Dance can do,maybe, Gary Oldman, but he doesn't have Dance's presence.And, Rachel Griffith can act the socks off her contemporaries.

So very, very disappointed!!!

If the ending would have been better, the grade would of certainly be above 6. Now it has a 5, maybe it will go down a little in time, but don't think it will drop under 4.7 because it is a movie that delivers some scares, some thinking, good acting, focusing more on the plot than killshots.

Looks a lot like "Freakdog" 2008, but a level over it, that one showing more torture kills than creating a deeper, more complex plot like we have here. Some nude scenes even and lovely ones too, some jump scares, few and little, but enough to remind you, you're watching a horror, some points gained from the fact that they ended the movie instead of prolonging it to a small infinity. So all in all, 5 is just the grade for "Patrick", could have been better, huge potential, very good atmospheric shots throughout the movie, very dark and moody, but still, 2014 shows that horror are not made like they used to. I recommend it for a late night, especially during a storm.

Cheers!

Largely ignored 2013 remake of the little known 1978 Australian psychological thriller!

This awkward, self-conscious homage to the original is made even worse by inconsistent acting and the clumsy overuse of not-particularly-good CGI. Walter Dance was somehow roped into a lead role (possibly via blackmail) but not even his commanding presence can mask the appalling stench of this dunger.

Shot in a controversial colour palette of teal and brown, Patrick features a Pino Donaggio score, a half-written script, Walter Dance eating a frog, and more B-grade horror tropes than you can throw a dog at.

Best line: 'You are a prissy, meddling little bitch who's wasting my precious time, and I would dearly love you to **** off!'

Worst line: 'Patrick wants his hand job!'

I rate Patrick at 9.99 on the Haglee Scale, which works out as a shocking 3/10 on IMDb.

When a young nurse begins work at an isolated psychiatric ward, she quickly becomes fascinated with Patrick, a brain dead patient who is the subject of a mad scientist's cruel and unusual experiments.

What starts as an innocent fascination quickly takes a sinister turn as Patrick begins to use his psychic powers to manipulate her every move, and send her life into a terrifying spiral out of control.

Dumb out dated plot.

It's filmed well enough but the concept is a 70s concept and just so dumb today.

The film should never have been re-made.

As I've said, the film is made well.

But it's such a stoopid concept today.

Signing up to work at a mental health facility, a nurse finds the growing attachment of a brain-dead patient with her is causing him to lash out with his supernatural powers at those around her and forces her to stop his deadly games.

This turned out to be quite an enjoyable and overall entertaining remake. What really works for this one is the fact that so much of what happens here comes off as genuinely freaky and quite chilling, as the completely comatose person laying there gives off an utterly freaky look here that never really looks normal yet is given quite a large amount of happenstance to prove otherwise. From his initial reactions around her that aren't quite right yet perfectly within the realm of realism which happens to make their continued time together all the more creepy by how far it veers off into that kind of dangerous territory. From the inconsequential marks of how he warps into her life by stealing away all the different parts of her to force her to keep coming back, it takes the sudden use of technology of how he communicates to get the point across that something's really wrong and that sets up the fine final half here which is all sorts of fun. With the action coming from his manipulation of not only the objects around him but also possessing people to continue his bidding, it makes for quite the frantic series of events here with tons of fantastic encounters trying to get past the possessed minions, playing his deranged games to save everyone and finding all the charred bodies and extremely graphic kills first hand makes for a truly enjoyable, thrilling series of events to really end this one on a high. As well, the general sleaze and depravity here makes for a much nicer watch than expected with a bit more going for it in that regard than would normally be the case here which altogether causes this a lot of fun and more than enough to hold off the few small problem areas. The biggest issue to overcome here is the completely bland and banal back-story given here that's supposed to make us side with him and his obsession with her yet does nothing in terms of making him into a sympathetic figure. Showing the treatment from his mother isn't so much a sympathetic ploy but instead one that completely justifies his condition by being such a deranged lunatic, and one that also never manages to account for his supernatural powers here which is quite shocking since that's such a major part of the story that never gets fully solved. The last problematic area here is the rather lengthy amount of time here before any kind of supernatural activity manifests itself, since this is so based on that it tends to lose focus for the first hour or so here by letting the storyline develop yet it doesn't really give off much of a hint about it's supernatural origins for much of the time in doing so which lets this wander along until finally coming out with such scenes at the end. While this isn't too bad as these first half scenes are quite watchable without stumbling too badly, it is noticeable here.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity and a mild sex scene.

Why do studios except to make movies like this? Patrick is nothing but a bunch of poorly acted. Poorly produced muck with no real storyline and a few cheap jump scares. Patrick totally wasted the potential of a good film set in a creepy near abandoned clinic were strange doctors undertaken strange procedures. No part of this wretch inducing story makes any sense at all and it is lucky it wasn't too long a movie because I would not be able to stomach another minute of this garbage. Sharnie Vincent Is a horrible actress but i think she tries her best but she is not well suited for this particular genre. The story contains a ridiculous amount of holes. And rubbish that is impossible to happen in real life and even in a movie they are still ridiculous. A bunch of near dead parents chanting something Patrick desires? Really?