Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

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.

suite92 The Roget Clinic houses comatose patients who show little sign of possible recovery. The main effort of the clinic is to find a way to wake these patients up and bring them back into the world.In the opening sequence, a young nurse follows her ears around the place, takes a few pictures, and is killed for it. This is followed up by the hiring of the replacement, Kathy Jacquard, the protagonist.Soon enough, she's involved with the research aspect. Dr. Roget has her assist while he tries to resuscitate some neural pathways in Patrick. As time goes by, Patrick communicates, but with only Kathy. Doctor Roget exposes more of his work to her. Patrick keeps interrupting Kathy's relationship with Brian, then with Damon.Patrick eventually starts typing telekinetically, and lets Kathy know what he's up to, somewhat. Kathy tries to get Roget to stop torturing Patrick, but Doctor Roget will have none of that.Will someone put a stop to the madness before Patrick gets his complete revenge? -----Scores-----Cinematography: 9/10 Well done, with a component of noir techniques.Sound: 8/10 Rather good: often added to the suspense and sense of danger.Acting: 8/10 Charles Dance, Rachel Griffiths, Sharni Vinson, and Martin Crewes were all rather fine.Screenplay: 8/10 Better than I expected on exposition of motivations. This was central to the resolution of the film's plot drivers.

kosmasp While the movie takes its name of one of the characters (not just anyone of course), I decided to take the normal name of the main actress. She has a tough job, trying to sell horror, but also being oblivious to stuff taking place around her. She delivers, even at times when the viewer might want to scream at her or other characters for not seeing the obvious.The scare moments (jump scares or others) are pretty decent. While I haven't seen the original though, what I'm hearing, is that this one is superior to it. I can only comment on this one and while not perfect by a long shot, this does more than a decent job selling the horror. Twists and turns included ...