Patrick (1979)

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Another cult classic from the land of Australia. This is a good one to have on the shelf of your movie collection, but it'll probably collect a fair bit of dust. It is good but a bit boring. It seems to drag on for too long until the ultimate climax. Patrick proves to be interesting and new but fails a few too many times along it's way for the quest. Good enough for a one watch trick, but anything after that might as well just skip to the last 20 or so minutes. Interesting and surprisingly original with its concepts and also relatively well made considering its budget. Not Australia's best, but a good cult classic to have in your ultimate, but not essential, collection of movies.

After the phenomenal success of Brian DePalma's Carrie (1976), telekinesis was used as a device for the horror genre in a number of films, including The Spell (1977), The Fury and The Medusa Touch (both 1978). Also released in 1978, this little-known Australian inclusion to the genre, Patrick, uses the titular character in a totally unique way than all others. Patrick (Robert Thompson) spends the entire film static in a hospital bed, his eyes wide open, starring consistently forward - very creepy. In the opening, we see Patrick's mother cavorting with a man she just met in her bath. Patrick walks in with an electric fire and throws it into the water. three years since this event, Patrick has been in a coma.Set in a contemporary hospital setting, the ward for catatonic patients has its sisters and matron, Matron Cassidy (Julia Blake) hires English girl, Kathy (Susan Penhaligon), who becomes Patrick's personal nurse. As she spends more time with him, he begins to communicate, first through spitting, then, he speaks through a type-writer. As Kathy's personal life becomes intertwined with Patrick's emotions, he begins hurting the people around her that have upset her, including her ex-husband and the Matron.It's an interesting, if slightly ludicrous idea, that has been well executed by first-time horror director, Richard Franklin, who went on to direct firstly in Hollywood, with Psycho II (1983), and then in the United Kingdom with Link (1986). The relationship between Kathy and Patrick do also display some charming moments of pathos, but the film also has its moments of humour (some unintentional), particularly with Doctor Roget. Played by Robert Helpmann (many will remember him as the horrific Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), he seems to be possessed at moments by the madness of Kinski, with his wild obsession with the titular patient. Worth it for Helpmann alone, but nevertheless a genuinely exciting film, raising subtly issues around euthanasia.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

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.

This is a real surprise. I only heard of this film through the OZ documentary, 'Not Hollywood' and picked it up for pence, but it is very good indeed.Susan Penhaligon has a lot to do in the lead role as she struggles to communicate with the 'dead' hospital patient, Patrick.Some real suspense, a little nudity and gore but excellent dialogue and a throbbing storyline that maintains a strong interest throughout.Robert Thompson is the poor guy who has to play dead or near dead through the whole film but does a really good job and those eyes, even to the end. Great stuff!