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.
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.