Sadly Over-hyped

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

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.

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."

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.

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.