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. Written by
----------------------------------------
Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
----------------------------------------
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")
----------------------------------------
billbeast from Australia
----------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------
teoalcantara from Brazil
----------------------------------------
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'...
----------------------------------------
doug_park2001 from United States
----------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------
ASouthernHorrorFan from United States
----------------------------------------
"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.
----------------------------------------
(mortia@chariot.net.au) from Australia
----------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------
Flow from Romania
----------------------------------------
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!
----------------------------------------
Logan-22 from United States
----------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------
Paul Magne Haakonsen from Denmark
----------------------------------------
"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.
----------------------------------------
atinder from United Kingdom
----------------------------------------
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
nurse|comatose|telekinesis|psychic power|bare breasts|horror movie remake|ozploitation|remake|hospital|one word title|character name in title|
AKAs Titles:
Certifications:
Argentina:16 / Australia:MA15+ (2013) / Germany:18 / Japan:R15+ / Singapore:M18 / UK:18 / USA:Not Rated