I haven't seen the original movie but this remake is creepy as well as entertaining. The story about the pretty and disturbed man in a coma is well elaborated and becomes creepier the longer you watch.The acting was convincing. This is not a low budget flick. It's not a blockbuster either but pretty decent and budget well spent I would say. There are worse movies out there. It's pretty good and fits the genre. Bonus points for decent choice of actors, attractive Patrick and the beautiful mansion. The shots showing the building from outside are pretty enough to make a good postcard. Don't judge a book by its cover as disturbing things are going on behind these walls. I don't see why this movie ranks so low here. It deserves eight and that's what it got from my side. The only reason for not going higher is that i keep higher ratings for outstanding or my favourites. "Patrick" was quite good.

Low budget Australian affair about an obscure and remote mental "hospital" whose star patient, Patrick, forges a bloody bond with new smart and able but unsuspecting nurse Kathy Jacquard (Sharni Vinson). The opening prologue seems to promise another predictably lame slasher flick, and the entire film is a little slow to develop, yet the last half-hour or so entails some interesting and creative layers and twists. This film becomes a lot more distinct once we get to know Patrick's story. Decent all-around acting, with good performances by the three women who play the nurses: Vinson, Rachel Griffiths, and Peta Sergeant.It seems the makers were trying to create a circa 1950 Gothic horror film set in the age of GPS with modern horror tropes (something like that). A valiant attempt, but PATRICK would have been better if it were more consistently modern. Many of the props (nurses' uniforms, etc) look unrealistically antiquated, and the outside views of the hospital. . .well, you can tell it's not an actual building. The constant rubber stamp suspense symphony soundtrack also gets a little annoying--There's just no need for it except in a few select spots. All the same, none of the various weaker points should get too much in the way if you're a big horror fan.Some brief "incidental" nudity and a fair measure of really nasty-gory death and dismemberment. Still, PATRICK makes good use of its gore, using it briefly and shockingly.

If the ending would have been better, the grade would of certainly be above 6. Now it has a 5, maybe it will go down a little in time, but don't think it will drop under 4.7 because it is a movie that delivers some scares, some thinking, good acting, focusing more on the plot than killshots.Looks a lot like "Freakdog" 2008, but a level over it, that one showing more torture kills than creating a deeper, more complex plot like we have here. Some nude scenes even and lovely ones too, some jump scares, few and little, but enough to remind you, you're watching a horror, some points gained from the fact that they ended the movie instead of prolonging it to a small infinity. So all in all, 5 is just the grade for "Patrick", could have been better, huge potential, very good atmospheric shots throughout the movie, very dark and moody, but still, 2014 shows that horror are not made like they used to. I recommend it for a late night, especially during a storm.Cheers!

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 ...