Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

jadavix "Patrick" is a classic of cult horror; the unique premise secures its status in this regard. Unfortunately most of its attempts to generate suspense and shock fall flat until the very end, though it does manage an atmosphere of discomfort.The titular Patrick is a man in a coma after murdering his mother and another man. How he got into the coma is unexplained: in fact, the movie does a better job of explaining the fantasy that he now has telekinesis. He lies as a vegetable in his hospital bed, his fierce blue eyes frozen open and unblinking. But he can spit.The new nurse, played by the stunningly beautiful Susan Penhaligon, immediately establishes a rapport with the patient that all other hospital staff consider dead. He responds to her speech with "tut tut" sounds, and soon communicates through a typewriter in one particularly effective scene.Less effective is the scene where a playboy doctor, having encroached on Patrick's territory with his babin' nurse, almost drowns due to Patrick's telekinesis. This scene isn't shot convincingly and looks like a man deliberately thrashing around until the assistant director tells him to stop. Is there a convincing way to film such a scene, especially so early in the movie? The script should have saved such a terrifying example of Patrick's reach for the later stages of the movie, and focused on establishing his rapport, and lesser examples of his talents, at the beginning.This is still a cult classic. Flaws like those will always be overlooked in favour of a unique concept which I believe "Patrick" delivers. And if you want more "psychopathic telekinetic vegetable" action, don't miss the unofficial, pure rip off "sequel", "Patrick Still Lives", which ups the sleaze quotient by a factor of 11!

atinder This movie is very slow burner, it's take time to build up creepy feel to the movie,Patrick sure did look really creepy and very scary at times even without moving! I loved all the strange things he was doing to the others people in the movie, I thought was really good effect for the time. I loved the way the movie ended, in one of the last scenes of the movie, I didn't see that coming but it did make Jump from my Chair. Great story, Great effects and great acting from the whole castLooked at trailer for remake, Guy who playing Pat dose not look as scary and looks two young that this part.!

Woodyanders Young Patrick (a creepy mute portrayal by Robert Thompson, who never blinks or says a single word throughout the whole movie) goes into a comatose state after murdering his mother and her lover. Pretty young nurse Kathy Jacquard (a fine and appealing performance by fetching brunette Susan Penhaligon) senses that Patrick is somehow still sentient and hence trying to communicate with her. Meanwhile, various folks around Patrick start dying in mysterious ways. Director Richard Franklin does a commendable job of firmly grounding the fantastic premise in a thoroughly plausible pedestrian everyday reality, but crucially fails to generate any much-needed suspense, momentum, and spooky atmosphere. Moreover, Everett De Roche's blah script gets bogged down in a numbing excess of dull chitchat that slows the erratic pace to a sluggish crawl and allows the shaky narrative to ramble all over the place. The bloated 112 minute running time further compounds the severity of the general tedium. Fortunately, the competent acting by the sturdy cast keeps the picture watchable: Penhaligon makes for a strong and sympathetic lead, with praiseworthy support from Rod Mullinar as Kathy's estranged husband Ed, Bruce Barry as charming and handsome neurosurgeon Brian Wright, Robert Helpmann as the coldly pragmatic Dr. Roget, Julia Blake as Kathy's stern superior Matron Cassidy, and Helen Hemingway as the friendly Sister Williams. Brian May's lush and spare orchestral score manages to be effectively chilling without ever becoming too overbearing or obtrusive. Don McAlpine's crisp cinematography boasts several clever and impressive visual flourishes. However, this movie is too flatly done and talky to pass muster as anything more than a decent time-waster.

Was it All a Dream? Patrick is one of a rare breed- the psychological horror film. It's said that this was meant as a tribute to Richard Franklin's favorite director, Alfred Hitchcock. Some of Hitchcock's movies were boring to me personally, but none of them were as absurd as this. Partly focusing on the suspense of the plot, but mainly meant to be an interesting character study, this is a misguided and confused film. I can't be the only person on Earth who went into this movie with one expectation from the characters, only to find things spin around at their own whim.Patrick is about a young man who kills people with his psychic abilities. Not many though, because this wasn't intended to be a brutal slasher film with creative deaths. It's more about the fate of the victims in relationship to their killer. Patrick is an ominous figure who is unbelievably creepy (credit the movie there) and takes advantage of his power to move objects, causing major chaos in many ways. That makes him an antagonist. Yet, the film will then switch its' loyalty and try and paint Patrick as a victim. That the people he is attacking in the last 35-40 minutes of the film are only people who are a threat to him, physically. I can't be the only person who is annoyed by that.Another example is the character of Matron Cassidy. She performs her own patented "shock test" on Kathy by listing types of social outcasts whom she claims are attracted to working in a hospital. The moment she added "lesbians" to her list of evil or mentally sick people, I had no sympathy for her and she was on my hate list. Another antagonist in the movie. She's a troubled woman, no doubt in my mind. Then halfway through the movie, suddenly she challenges Kathy on the subject of euthanasia. A subject I strongly support because I believe people are the only "God" we'll ever see during our time on Earth. Who agrees with me? The homophobic Matron agrees with me, suddenly Kathy is the religious one with the foolish point of view (in my mind).Is there any explanation for this film's obsession with lying about characters? Why does it make one statement about a person, then completely backtrack over it like it can be easily erased? It's not as though they hid something. What it is is that they switched it. That's basically hypocrisy. This is a pointless, infuriating film. Maybe there was a point to it that I missed. Somewhere between Patrick's erection being a point of interest to the filmmakers, and his jealousy over his nurses and their lovers first being something spiteful, then turning into something supposedly beautiful and poetic by the final scene. If you can figure this out, best of luck to you!Looking at the film on a much more superficial level, it's a good piece of art. The music score is very pretty. The cast is incredible, everyone does a marvelous job. Susan Penhaligon is an insanely beautiful woman, with (excluding Patrick) amazing taste in men. Julia Blake as Matron Cassidy turns in an astounding performance, one of the reasons I really hated her was how powerful she was. Very intimidating, a good choice to play an authoritative character. Visually, the film is very attractive. It takes place in what I have to assume is the late spring into early summer. Cool winds, breezes, warm locations. My favorite scene of the film involves an incredibly awesome strobe effect (can never have too much of that in movies). Looking at it in a more strict capacity- it's not dignified enough as a drama. It's not dangerous enough as a horror film. It's too crude and frankly, too lame to be legitimately psychological. It's not compelling. Plenty suggestive. But not compelling.In many ways, this movie is a perfect enigma. So much of it doesn't make sense. My advice: just don't expect or assume anything. Play it by ear. I enjoyed certain scenes, others fascinated me (only to have the movie twist the characters and anger me in doing that). Some scenes were utterly laughable, unintentionally. One outright sent a chill down my spine.