So much average

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The cute and appealing Susan Penhaligon ("The Land That Time Forgot") plays Kathy Jacquard, a young woman returning to work as a nurse. She comes to a private hospital where the title character (Robert Thompson, "Thirst") has been in a coma for three years. (He'd murdered his trampy mother and a lover of hers, before lapsing into his current state.) Despite misgivings from her boss (Robert Helpmann, "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang") and supervisor (Julia Blake, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"), she finds herself attached to Patrick, and reaching out to him. Soon it becomes apparent that he CAN sense her presence, and has fallen in love with her. However, he has incredibly powerful psychokinetic powers that constantly manifest themselves in and outside the hospital."Patrick" isn't without some flaws, but overall it emerges as an interesting and largely absorbing story with some bonkers moments. Obviously it's done on some sort of budget, keeping special effects to a minimum and mostly concentrating on plot and performance. Since it runs an hour and 53 minutes in its most complete version, it's too drawn out to be totally effective, not always staying on point. Some viewers can describe it as "cheesy" or "tacky", but it does succeed at being creepy often enough to overlook its lesser aspects. One element that stuck in this viewers' head for years is the way that Patrick makes spitting sounds - once for yes, twice for no - when acknowledging Kathy's questions.Much effectiveness is due to Thompson, in his film debut. He has the hardest job among the cast, having to lie there for most of the films' duration and not react to other actors in the room. He certainly has a look that helps to make him quite memorable.But the whole cast is fine: Ms. Penhaligon, Mr. Helpmann, Ms. Blake, Rod Mullinar as Kathy's amiable estranged husband Ed, Bruce Barry as inquisitive doctor Brian Wright, Helen Hemingway as Kathy's co-worker Sister Williams, Maria Mercedes as a high strung nurse, Walter Pym as aged and senile Captain Fraser, and Frank Wilson as a detective.The film further benefits from impressive camera work and capable direction by Hitchcock protege Richard Franklin, who as we all know went on to make the surprisingly worthy first sequel to "Psycho". And it can boast another lovely music score by that great Aussie composer Brian May.Even if you're not overly impressed with the film in general, you will want to stick it out for THAT ending.Seven out of 10.

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.

As others have commented, this film is a bit of a love story that delves into the area of psychic phemonena, in particular psychokinesis and, though it isn't overtly expressed, astral projection.The title character, Patrick, is a patient in a private, long-term care facility. He's been in a seemingly irreversible vegetative state for three years, the result of psychological trauma experienced after the murder of his mother and her lover. Kathy is a new nurse at the facility who's main responsibility is the care of Patrick. She refuses to accept that he is unaware of his surroundings and repeatedly attempts to communicate with him. Spending long periods of time at his bedside she develops a bond with him, and it is soon revealed that he develops an even stronger bond with her.The well-written story progresses very slowly but the performances are quite strong. There was not much "action" in this film, nor were there many special effects...yet as a psychodrama I suppose they weren't necessary. I found this film to be riveting. It easily drew me in, despite the lack of thrills one would expect in horror films. I was disappointed that there weren't many surprises, although truth be told as the film drew to its close there was one scene that was eerily unsettling and another scene where I literally jumped out of my skin (and that does not happen often). So all-in-all I enjoyed this movie.I've been an avid fan of horror films for over 30 years, yet somehow I'd never heard of this one until a few days ago. I particularly enjoy films that do not rely on graphic violence, nudity and the use of four-letter words. In such films the writing, acting and directing is what categorizes them as great or awful. Though this film isn't one of the greats, it's not one of the worst films ever made either. I'm glad that I came across it, and I recommend it to any fan of horror.

I finally had the chance to watch PATRICK and I'm glad I did. I had heard about it a few times, in a way that got me interested. I knew it had a certain cult-status, so I made sure I didn't know too much about it before seeing it. I recommend everybody who hasn't seen it yet to do the same, that way the movie will have its maximum impact. So, you guessed it, I liked it a lot and think it's an effective creepy little horror/thriller. The only thing you need to know about the story is that it's about a young man, Patrick, who's in a coma for several years and for reasons unexplained. Also bare in mind that before he slipped into a coma, Patrick viciously killed his mother and her lover... just in case you start feeling sorry for the poor lad at one point or another. You might wanna stop reading now, 'cause you do not need to know more.I think that when you consider PATRICK was released in 1978, it truly was a suspenseful little shocker. I can understand that some may find it too slow or even boring, but I personally don't mind slowly building up tension in this type of movies. I simply loved the fact that this movie carefully gives hints to the viewer about the fact that Patrick has acquired all sorts of psychokinetic powers throughout his comatose-years. And you sometimes can see him as a helpless child, then again as a cunning psychopath. This movie at one point, also raises some thoughts about the moral issues concerning euthanasia. But then leaves those questions behind when you start wondering whether it are the machines who keep Patrick alive, or it is Patrick who controls the machines. Also, the tension throughout this movie is sharp as a knife, 'cause you're constantly waiting for Patrick to move, and when he does, it truly is a terrifying sight.You can tell this was shot on a low budget but it still looks okay. The acting was even pretty decent (thanks to a good, unknown cast, 'cause otherwise this movie would have failed miserably). I especially liked Susan Penhaligon as Kathy and of course Robert Thompson as creepy Patrick. Robert Helpmann was very unlikeable as the sadistic Dr. Roget. The same goes for Helen Hemingway as the hateful head-nurse Williams. There isn't really any gore in this movie and the few make-up effects are not so well-done. However this movie does something that's simply unthinkable in nowadays cinema and will make several animal-rights activists go foaming at the mouth. At one point Dr. Roget actually pierces a real living frog's brains, hereby killing it. Then he joyfully runs electricity through its carcass to see it jump again (but he eventually gets what he deserves when he is seen eating those same frogs under the mental influence of... Patrick). Pretty sick, if you ask me.On a curious note, I suspect no-one less than Quentin Tarantino having seen and liking PATRICK. Because in KILL BILL Uma Thurman's character's also in a coma AND spits at unsuspecting bystanders. It might be far-fetched, but those are the only two movies I've seen that have such a character, and considering Tarantino is such a real movie-buff...PATRICK is an Australian movie that wasn't too successful after all and highly under-appreciated if you ask me, so the bigger surprise it was that, all of the sudden two years later, an unofficial sequel was made in Italy, PATRICK VIVE ANCORA, which differs immensely from the original. But that, my friends, is a completely different story, and you may not wanna go there...