Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Nonureva Really Surprised!

SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Michael_Elliott 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.

FlashCallahan 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 scientist's 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......Having never seen the original movie, I had nothing to compare it with, so I went in cold, and kept my expectations reasonably high, because it had Charles Dance in it, and he's a wonderful actor.And he's the best thing about this movie, which he and Griffiths save from becoming just an average horror movie. That little bit of class from those two, add a lot of gravitas to the overall narrative. The story is simple enough, comatose patient with telekinetic powers becomes obsessed with someone who has given him a little too much empathy, and instead of heeding the warnings from the matron, albeit in sinister form, she still endeavours to communicate with the titular character, and obviously he wants to return the empathy.But it's good fun, and particularly creepy in places, but alas, some of the effects can be very very good, and other of the effects can be bloomin' awful, see the doctor in car peril for some truly dreadful CGI.But these are minor quibbles for what is a nice little movie. The house is particularly creepy, and the final third is all out bonkers, but very tense never the less.If you can find it, see it, I highly recommend it.

aloysius_predato Charles Dance provides his typical more than adequate performance; however, everyone else involved (except maybe the writer) is clearly an amateur. I was not scared at all, nor was I really ever nervous or intrigued. The writing was... eh... competent at best, but the plot had the intensity and pace of a talking statue. Sharni Vinson has been a joke any time she steps in front of a camera, come to think of it, none of the cast, other than Mr. Dance, should have been paid, like at all. The performances were not a surprise, making them consistent with the plot. Avoid... avoid... AVOID!!! Unless you're into reliving the trauma of a bad cinematic experience, or enjoy seeing a man's naked @$$... twice. I guess I must be into the former, definitely not the latter, but that's just me.

teoalcantara 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'...