User Reviews (429)

Add a Review

  • Let me start off by saying that I love the beginning of this movie. I love the opening scene to the cruci-fixion scenes. Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne both do good acting jobs. The film is about a young girl with no faith in god who begins to recieve the wounds of the crucified Christ, the Stigmata.

    I must say that I was very disappointed in the ending. It was not the climax that I was hoping for. But I was still enthralled enough to keep watching until the film ended. If you are totally into the religious horror movies, like me, I suggest that you also see END OF DAYS, LOST SOULS, BLESS THE CHILD, and I'm sure there's some other movie like those out there. STIGMATA gets 4/5.
  • Frankie Paige (Patricia Arquette) is a hip 20-something New Yorker who faces a nasty wake-up call when she gets randomly attacked by an unseen force, puncturing her wrists. While the hospital calls it a suicide attempt, the Vatican thinks she may be showing signs of stigmata and sends a priest (Gabriel Byrne) to investigate.

    This is one of the more clever "religious horror" films that I've seen. Using a young atheist girl as the recipient of stigmata is an original and intriguing concept. The various violent scenes where the fabulously stylish Arquette is attacked are gory and horrific, but so gorgeously shot that you cannot take your eyes away. Unfortunately, there are too many boring scenes of babbling priests. There was a bit of controversy when this was released because it hypothesizes about some very horrific skeletons in the closet of the Catholic church. The DVD features the Director's alternate ending that is decidedly less Hollywoodized than the theatrical release, but leaves the story in a confused, contradictory space. Recommended for fans of religious and stylish horror. My Rating: 7/10
  • ***SPOILERS*** A bit confusing movie involving this secret Gospel that's purported to be the only words written by Jesus himself! It's this Gospel, if ever made public, that will shake the very foundations of the Catholic Church!

    Father Andrew Kierran, Gabriel Byrne, had investigated this weeping Madonna at the small Brazilian Catholic Church, in Belo Quinto, and was told by his superiors in the Vatican to drop the case even though he, a scientist by profession, thought that it was a genuine case of the paranormal or a miracle by church standers. It's later in the movie that Father Andrew is assigned to this case of "Stigmata" in of all places Pittsburgh Pa. involving this 23 year old hair dresser Frankie Paige, Patricia Arguette, who's not Catholic or even religious! What Father Andrew finds out is that the two cases, the one in Belo Quinto and that of Frankie's, are in fact related! Related by a string of rosary beads!

    The movie "Stigmata" slowly builds up to its shocking and fiery climax when Father Andrews begins to question the actions of his superior Cardinal Houseman, Jonathan Pryce, who first authorized the investigation of Frankie Paige. Houseman is using both Father Andrew and his fellow priests to squelch what Frankie's "Stigmata" really is all about. The mysterious rosary beads originally belonged to the excommunicated and late Father Alameida, Jack Donner, of the Belo Quinto Catholic Church! By Frankie getting possession of the beads, through a gift from her mother, she has become as much as a threat to the Cardinal and the church he represents as Father Alameida was!

    Despite a number of wild and gory scenes of Frankie's hands and legs bursting out into streams of blood signifying Jesus' suffering on the cross we, and Father Andrew, never really quite get what's going on in the movie! That's until the also, like Father Alameida, excommunicated Father Petrocelli, Rade Serbedzija, unexpectedly shows up at almost the very end of the film. With what seems like no kind of introduction, I only got his name from checking out the movie's credits, to just who he is all Father Petrocelli shows Father Andrews to convince him that his fantastic story is legit is a well worn out old photo of himself. The photo has Petrocelli as well as Father Alameida and Father Delmonico,Dick Latessa posing in it. It's with that photo that Father Petrocelli convinces Father Andrew that his boss Cardinal Houseman isn't exactly, without really explaining why, on the up and up.

    Now having all the evidence to put Houseman up before a court of inquiry at the Vatican in his attempt of squelching the Gospel of Jesus Father Andrew has to prevent him from going even a step farther! That's in stopping the Cardinal, in a phony exorcism, from silencing the one person who can expose him, Frankie Paige, by murdering her!
  • The "stigmata" is a Christian religious term that refers to the spontaneous appearance of wounds corresponding to the wounds on the Christ's body when he was crucified. This religious experience is most typically associated with deeply religious people and, I believe, is not one that is widely taken seriously. What makes this movie interesting is that it portrays the appearance of these wounds as a terrifying, extremely painful and ultimately humiliating experience. There's nothing conventionally religious in the experience portrayed here -- in fact, the victim is an athiest.

    But, having bypassed the conventional, the movie is only partially successful in bringing the experience of the stigmata to the screen. The movie is a victim itself of a conventional portrayal of the evil bureaucratic Vatican desk jockeys suppressing "true" religion. And I have to admit that, as I was watching it, I found myself thinking, "Hmm, that sounds like the Gospel of Thomas," -- a famous Gnostic Gospel. Surprise.

    But, overall, I'd recommend it as a decent movie and a departure from the generic, bland portrayal of Christian religious experience a la the Hallmark channel or "Touched by an Angel." It is a movie that can make you think about the nature of religious experience and its impact on an ordinary life.
  • ...which most positive reviewers seem to overlook. Or worse, choose to ignore.

    Plot In a Nutshell: A priest/scientist (Gabriel Byrne) is sent to Pittsburgh to investigate strange events involving a young atheist (Patricia Arquette).

    Why I rated it a '6': Although the idea of building a film around an ancient Gnostic gospel is intriguing, the story falls apart because of two glaring issues. The first one involves the possession of Arquette's character, Frankie. If we are to believe that Frankie is possessed by the spirit of an old noble priest who wanted to reveal the real teachings of Jesus, why then, do her eyes turn red as if she's a demon, and why does she try to seduce and then physically abuse Byrne's character, Father Kiernan? This doesn't make any sense. From the beginning Father Kiernan was trying to help Frankie and the spirit of the dead priest should have understood that. Frankie acts here as if she's very much possessed by something evil, and not by the spirit of a dead priest with good intentions. The entire scene just defies logic. Sure it was cool to see Arquette toss Byrne around like a rag doll, but thematically it was totally incongruous to the film's mission.

    Problem #2 - If the idea of the film was that Arquette's character was being used by the spirit of the dead priest to 'get the word out' about this hidden gospel, it's doing a very poor job of it. For one, because of Frankie's odd behavior, and because of the afflictions she suffers from the stigmata she receives, almost everyone avoids her. Her friends become more distant and she loses her clients at the salon. What kind of messenger is this? One that everyone avoids? That's not very effective. To make matters worse, when possessed, Frankie speaks or writes in an ancient language (Aramaic) that no one understands. Even the priest investigating her case (Byrne) has to phone back to Rome to find someone to interpret what Frankie says and writes. Again, how does this help getting the message out? No one can understand what she is saying, if they actually stick around to hear it. Add to this, the bouts of stigmata Frankie receives become more and more vicious, to the point that it appears she is on the verge of death. So...if she is supposed to be a messenger bringing some important, vital knowledge to the world...making her a pariah, having her speak in a language that no one can comprehend, and beating up her body to its limits, such that she's on death's door....how is this in any way helpful in spreading the news of the hidden gospel? Short answer: it's not helpful. The film falls apart once you realize this. I know it, and now you know it. I really wanted to like this film. But a film has to make sense for me to like it, and this one just doesn't.

    6/10. Good general concept but poor execution in the details. Would I watch again (Y/N)? Having seen it twice now, no. Twice is enough.

    BTW - I have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, the 'lost book' that is central to the film. It's a bunch of random quotes, supposedly said by Jesus, but a lot of it is hard to decipher and it's in no way the 'explosive' secret the film would have you believe. Some of the quotes appear in the New Testament but many do not. It's interesting but hardly earth-shattering.
  • Patricia Arquette plays Frankie Paige, a trendy, alternative young woman who lives on her own in a massive Pittsburgh loft apartment decorated with all manner of cool, designer furniture and ornaments. And she's a hairdresser in a beauty parlour/tattoo studio. If you can swallow that, then you should have no problem with the film's supernatural storyline, which sees Frankie displaying signs of the stigmata after becoming possessed by the spirit of a dead priest who is determined to reveal the secrets of a 5th gospel written by Jesus himself immediately before his crucifixion.

    Stigmata is a reasonably entertaining piece of religious horror nonsense thanks to fine performances from its excellent lead cast, which also includes Gabriel Byrne as miracle debunking priest Father Andrew Kiernan, and Jonathan Pryce as a Vatican Cardinal trying to protect the Catholic church at all costs. What prevents the film from being a more successful affair is the distracting style of director Rupert Wainwright, who conducts proceedings as if he was making a music video for MTV. Yes, the visuals are aesthetically impressive, with stunning lighting and some flashy editing, but they don't suit the material and prove very distracting.

    After much thrashing around by Arquette as she suffers the stigmata wounds amidst dripping water, flapping doves and shafts of blue light, and some weak Exorcist-style possession scenes, the film wraps things up nicely with the message that you don't need churches to worship God, for he is everywhere. Oh, and the notion that the Catholic church is a massively corrupt organisation heavily involved in all manner of conspiracies. Nothing new there then.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    STIGMATA (1999) **1/2

    Starring: Patricia Arquette, Gabriel Byrne, Nia Long, Jonathan Pryce, and Thomas Kopache Director: Rupert Wainwright 108 minutes Rated R (for strong graphic violence, some language, thematic elements, and brief sexuality)

    By Blake French:

    "Stigmata" is a very strange film. It takes a real hit on Catholicism, and at times, religion in general. Obviously, "Stigmata" isn't a film for all audiences, people with strong religious beliefs, for instance, and is certainly not appropriate for younger viewers. The production has so many good qualities, it's a shame to ultimately conceive that the flaw that sunk the motion picture is not its story or characters, but the individual scenes themselves. I can compare this film's failure to a jigsaw puzzle in which there are many interestingly shaped and colorful pieces, but, unfortunately, they do not fit together to create a final piece of work.

    The filmmakers are hard at work here, including the production designers who, feature attractive, idealistic and convincing set designs and interesting prop use. The audience does buy the film as biblical territory. And with this to their credit, they should have gone way over the top with the touchy subject "Stigmata" deals with. Well, they do indeed take the plot the extra mile here, and quite graphically at times, may I add. But they go so far over the top at times, the filmmakers have nowhere to go after the scenes of aggressiveness. Those instances in the movie change tone rather rapidly. This is due to the very high peak of tension created. Therefore, the film has nowhere to go but downhill, giving us an overall production that has about a half dozen really scary moments that last about thirty seconds each, and the rest of the movie is just mediocre melodrama.

    The film opens with an acclaimed and dedicated Priest/scientist named Andrew Kiernan investigating a bizarre occurrence in a Brazilian church where a religious statue bled from its eyes. After noticing a few unique things in this town, however, after he returns home to Cardinal Daniel Houseman, Kiernan pleads to be sent back to this area to investigate further, but his requests are suspiciously denied.

    The film then jumps to another story, where a young atheist woman named Frankie Paige lives an independent life in Pittsburgh where she is occupied as a hair stylist with her fellow coworkers, including close friend Donna.

    Things drastically heat up for Frankie after she receives a rather significant gift from her mother who was shopping on vacation. This is an item from a salesperson off the streets whom himself stole from a dead Brazilian priest. Soon, Frankie begins to suffer violent, disturbing visions and appearing on her afterwards are wounds resembling the ones suffered by Christ, a symptom called the stigmata.

    This is where the Priest comes in. After more and more stigmata attacks are inflicted on Frankie, Kiernan is sent to Pittsburgh where he investigates. It is when Frankie explains to Kiernan that she does not believe in God when he then denies the occurring stigmata attacks on her. You see, usually the stigmata happens to deeply religious Catholics, and Frankie is anything but. On the other hand, never before has each one of the five stigmatic wounds taken place on one individual person, and by the time this film is over, guess how many Frankie will have suffered.

    I liked the film's characters, as did I the performances. It is interesting for me to see such a shallow character as Frankie Paige be caught right in the middle of such a deep, spiritual situation. And who better to play the character than the always entertaining Patricia Arquette, who dazzled earlier this year in "Goodbye, Lover," and now, with "Stigmata," plays Paige with the right sarcasm material.

    This is not to say that "Stigmata" is perfect in its use of characters--as a madder of fact, the film is characteristically flawed. Take, for instance, Frankie's best friend, Donna, who at first is present to serve as a companion for Frankie. Then, right in the middle of the movie, when the script no longer required her presence, she completely disappears without a trace. Why does this happen? Because the story gets too involved for the characters to have "buddies," making the rest of the characters, although not completely, puppets of the plot.

    "Stigmata" contains the kind of plot that I liked to experience; a deep, involved and revealing storyline that focuses on touchy subjects. The characters are lost in their dialogue, but if the audience buys the premise, they allow themselves to be sucked in the events that transpire. The person who I saw this movie with found the plot too absorbing for her, and I have a feeling that this is how the majority of an audience will feel, therefore, although it is a close call for me, I am not recommending the film. I do feel, however, that there is a group of individuals out there who, like I somewhat was able to do, will happen to enjoy this production for what it is worth. If the film fit together a bit more, I think there may have been much potential here. But in the end, "Stigmata," gets lost in its controversial atmosphere and forgets that movies like this need explanation and a through-line, not brief grizzly scenes that repeat themselves over and over again.

    Brought to you by MGM Productions.
  • Stigmata (1999) is a movie I rewatched for the first time in a long time on HBOMAX. The storyline follows an atheist who starts suffering from stigmata. A priest who believes more in science than religion is sent in to investigate the events and while he has initial doubts he slowly starts believing...and maybe falling in love in the process.

    This movie is directed by Rupert Wainwright (The Fog remake) and stars Patricia Arquette (True Romance), Gabriel Byrne (The Usual Suspects), Jonathan Pryce (Tomorrow Never Dies), Nia Long (The Best Man) and Ann Cusack (Gross Point Blank).

    The storyline and premise for this movie had potential; unfortunately the execution and direction didn't work for me. The acting is solid but this feels more like a "horror romance" than a horror movie. There are three fairly solid scenes in this - the initial bathtub scene, the subway sequence and the dry erase board / camera scene were all pretty good. The makeup and horror elements were fairly well done, but the weird love story totally distracted this from being what it could have been.

    Overall this is a fairly average addition to the horror genre that I would score a 5/10.
  • i thought this movie was excellent. the take on what stigmata is, the 'miracle' of it, the historical and religious views of stigmata are brought together within the plot of the movie.

    it is definitely anti-church, or rather, anti-establishment and anti-church politics. but it is not anti-god. the movie points out what many people believe already, that you do not need a church building to believe in god.

    yet, it's not a religious movie. it's not really a horror movie. there are parts that are horrific, and it will make you think. don't watch this if you're in the mood for mindless entertainment. see it, and make your own judgements on what it's about. even if you don't agree with the premise, the acting and the storyline are well worth it.
  • There's much going on in this Horror Movie, maybe too much. In its effort to make a scary, Mystic, Religio/Politico Film it becomes a bit muddled and ambiguous. The best parts being the Vatican cover-up of Ancient Documents Damming the Church and their efforts, and at all costs, to keep things hush-hush.

    It is, if anything, a stylish affair of the Soul, Beliefs and Dogma intertwined with Possession, of sorts, and something about Faith and lack thereof. This is quite a bit to handle and it is obvious that the Style overcomes the Substance as things unfold.

    The Movie is not without its energy and some of what comes through about Ancient Mysteries, Languages, and Saints is intriguing. But there is just too much going on here and things tend to get purged of their importance, or for that matter, their meaning.

    It is partly effective and has its Charm, is high on razzle-dazzle, and in the end becomes just too leaden and that keeps it from attaining its destination of predetermined lofty heights.
  • The problem with STIGMATA can be summed up in the first five minutes of the movie where a group of priests stand over an open coffin . Subtitles appear as they talk in foreign tongues . The atmosphere is dark and solemn . Then for no real reason blood runs down the screen ala the James Bond opening sequence then we`re treated to a pop video courtesy of Chumbawamba . It`s not actually an official pop video as it`s the opening credit titles but that`s how it plays out as a young man and woman stagger up some stairs to a bedroom where prayers won`t be getting said ( Though no doubt the young woman will be on her knees ! ) so you`ve got two scenes that are at odds with one another and the feel of the movie continues along these lines . The scenes set in America are very MTV with some really silly close up shots while the scenes set in the Vatican are very darkly lit and moody . This is probably done by the director on purpose but this doesn`t mean the scenes are any the less jarring .

    As for the story and screenplay itself I don`t think I`m all that qualified to criticise it in much detail . I didn`t like it much but I have never liked these " possesed by evil " type movies and I`m on record as having laughed all the way through THE EXORCIST which is what this movie resembled by the end . I will give the screenplay some credit by making the protagonist an atheist thereby saving us from heavy discussions on faith

    Oh and I just looked up director Rupert Wainwright`s resume who started off by directing - Wait for it - pop videos . Goodness me there`s no way I would have believed that unless I`d seen it in black and white , and talking of black and white Wainwright has directed Michael Jackson videos ! I`m trying to think of a witty line to finish off this review but I don`t think I`ll bother
  • This movie is a proof (at least to me) that you should not always trust reviews and user comments. After reading comments on this movie I had a picture that it wouldn't be very good at all, but I was certainly corrected on that point. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. The movie is quite "heavy" though, so I can understand that it doesn't appeal to everyone, but for anyone who likes a little depth and aren't influenced by what other people think I really recommend this movie. I rated it 9 out of 10, and it was certainly worth it.
  • pwt22130 March 2019
    I saw this movie when it came out 20 years ago and thought... meh. It is not a great, scary, horror movie as I thought it would be and as it was originally advertised to be. But having watched it several times over the years on TV, I've come to see the nuances I did not originally. It is still not a great, scary, horror movie...but it is worth seeing for those who enjoy the unknown.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Honestly, this is easily in the top 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Partly, because it takes itself so seriously, as opposed to regular light hearted trash, this movies wants you to be emotionally involved, to feel for the characters, and to care about the alleged conspiracy. None of this ever even comes close to happening.

    ****MILD SPOILERS******

    There are 3 main reasons why this movie is so terrible: 1.) Incoherent and totally non-sensical plot. 2.) Annoying style-over-substance "MTV" camerawork. 3.) Moronic characters and plot holes.

    Allow me to elaborate.

    1.) Apparently, when this movies was being made, they couldn't decide whether to make a movie about church conspiracies, the stigmata, or possession. So, guess what? They combined them! An aetheist gets possessed by a dead person, who then makes her exhibit the stigmata so as to expose a church conspiracy. How a regular person is able to transcend death and possess another human being through his rosary is never explained, nor even talked about. Now, instead of just saying what he wants to say, he gives her the Stigmata. WHY? Why not just spit it out? Instead, we get treated to scenes of screaming things in harsh voices, carving cryptic messages on cars, and writing messages on walls. Apparently this priest was also a violent guy, because the possessed young lady also wigs out on one o f the characters, while talking in that cliched, harsh, "possessed" voice that we all have heard countless times. This also starts to tie into my second complaint, because whenever the young lady gets the stigmata, she also defies the laws of gravity by floating into the air, and tossing everything and everybody around her as if they were in an earthquake? Why does this happen? Who knows!?! My guess is that the director thought it looked "cool".

    2.) This movies contains dozens of shots, in slow motion, of course, of birds showing up out of nowhere and flying off, and most annoyingly, of water dripping. This woman's apartment is constantly dripping water! CONSTANTLY! Logically, the place would probably fall apart with this many holes. To sum up this complaint, towards the end, and for absolutely no reason, the camera cuts to shots of water dripping, in slow motion, in reverse!! WHY!?! I have no idea! It has no relevance to anything, and once again, I'm betting it's because the director thought it looked "cool".

    3.) One of the main characters says he became a priest to explain away holes in science. This doesn't make sense to me. I would think that going to church would be enough, but no, he has to go through the entire rigamarole of becoming a priest. I just don't buy it. Secondly, there are lots of plot holes, a few of which I will elaborate on below. For starters, when she first gets the stigmata, the scene ends with her laying unconscious, bleeding. Next, she's in the hospital. Who called the ambulance? Another one is towards the end, when the previously mentioned "scientific priest" character is talking to the spirit who is possessing the girl. He says, "Take me as your messenger!" Not a word for word quote, but you get the idea. His response? "You have no faith, only doubt!" So, because of this, he possesses an aetheist! An aetheist has no faith, far less then any scientific priest! And then, there's the fact that the object of this movie's conspiracy, this Lost Gospel (of St. Thomas, I believe) is available at local bookstores. The characters are willing to kill to supress this document, but you could walk down to a bookstore and buy it. Maybe this is supposed to take place in an alternate history, where it isn't wide known, but the movie never tries to tell us this, or to even hint that this is an alternate happening of that document's uncovering.

    In closing, this movie is terrible to a spectacular degree. It is my arch-nemesis, which I feel the need to insult every chance I get. I loathe it. Final Grade: F
  • Stigmata is at the very least controversial. I feel that it's really struggling to find a genre, so it's harsh to compare it to the Exorcist as many have. This is a film based somewhat on truth, and somewhat on legend with a little Hollywood finesse to bring it all together. It doesn't stay completely true to either a Christian audience or to mainstream Hollywood, but I think that's to it's credit. I don't know many people who knowingly make this kind of cross-over in their normal rental choices, so in that way, it helps to reach the largest possible audience. The way that the film afflicts it's heroine with the stigmata through the rosary is just typical screenwriting, and the romance aspects are predictable. The film, based upon the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, assumes that the discovery of that scroll had never been know to the public, and that personal vendettas within the Vatican had helped to suppress it. In reality however, there have been numerous translations of that Gospel, although I rather doubt that the modern bible will be amended. (Due to it's debated authenticity.) In short, the film is thought-provoking, yet not heavy-handed in it's message. It leaves you asking questions as to your own faith, and to the nature of the established "church" far after you've reached the final credits. As an action-suspense-thriller I'd rank it about a 7 out of 10, but in terms of it's religious nature it succeeds greatly in the find-the-truth-for-yourself message that it conveys.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A priest from the Vatican, Father Andrew Kiernan (Gabriel Byrne) is sent to Sao Paulo, Brazil to investigate the appearance of the face of the Virgin Mary on the side of a building. While there he hears of a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding tears in a small town outside of the city after the death of another priest. Meanwhile, a young woman in the United States of America, Frankie Paige (Patricia Arquette) begins to show signs of stigmata, the five wounds of Jesus Christ.

    For a movie that was just made in 1999, Stigmata is quite dated. The cinematography is good, but some sequences are shot in a pop video style which was all the rage back in the 90's and it gets very ridiculous at times. I'm not a Christian, but the movie is anti-church, but not anti-god. There's a galore of conspiracy by the church which isn't exactly news to anybody. There's a lot of symbolism here though. I loved the water droplets scene which was symbolic of a non-believer like Patricia Arquette's character getting baptized after she slowly started to admit there might be a higher entity (I think all so-called 'Gods' were probably aliens or advanced human beings). It encourages you to question and ponder about what you believe is the truth.

    The quote: 'the Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood... and I am there, lift a stone... and you will find me' is somewhat similar to what the oldest religion (a very loose term to define it) in the world, Hinduism, which is rooted in Vedic tradition says - 'Aham Brahmasmi' - 'I am God' and thereby, everywhere, everything and everyone (trees, animals, humans, space among countless other things) has a God inside themselves and we just have to adhere to a moral code. I just find religions very intriguing. The main drawbacks of the movie are the music, the stylized shots and the very annoying Hollywood ending. Its an enjoyable movie with good performances by the actors though.

    7/10
  • Really i am not that type of man who believe on such religious movie but this was one of few good movie about the religious and moral thing. somehow I can accept part of the story that "The true church of Jesus Christ is so much more, not in buildings made of wood and stone."
  • KuRt-3324 February 2001
    What could have been an excellent movie, unfortunately suffers from some poorly-used movie clichés (if anyone still goes from the image of blood to somebody pouring in red wine, I swear I'm gonna scream!) and - even worse - stupid mistakes. Imagine for instance that you're a priest and you have this woman with stigmata who doesn't believe in God, why don't you question there being a rosary in her house? (Or is this yet another movie cliché where the clue that might reveal all is only found when the story finds it appropriate to be discovered?)

    All this is quite pitiful because 'Stigmata' had a lot of possibilities and quality in it (and not to forget a very good Patricia Arquette). What could have been an 'Exorcist' of the next generation, now comes out as an okay movie. And that's a damn shame.
  • Scarecrow-8811 August 2013
    Warning: Spoilers
    Patricia Arquette's decent performance as an atheist "struck with stigmata" helps a bit in this, to put it mildly, disastrous possession film with a scathing view of the Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic, but even I found this more than a bit hard to digest. Text, it seems, tells us that Christ didn't need a church to come in the middle of his relationship with us. Umm…this is kind of a belief for many of the Christian faith already. Many Christians feel there's no need for a "middleman" in order to have a spiritual relationship with Jesus. Anyway, Jonathan Pryce, who just doesn't have it in him to portray a character other than the stuffy, scheming, morally dubious villain, is a Cardinal willing to kill so that he can "protect the church". Gabriel Byrne is a former scientist who become a priest and is sent to study Arquette's stigmata, mainly to see if he can objectively dispute her condition as just some physical malady. Arquette is a hairdresser in Pittsburgh who wants no part of the stigmata, simply wanting the marks (and all the pain and blood that comes with them, including visions) out of her life. This film is all about effects: the slow motion of blood as it textures in water, a male voice speaking through Arquette's mouth as she tosses a bewildered Byrne all over her house (the house becomes a wreck and Byrne seems to take it all in stride each time she hurls him across her room), the levitation where Arquette is lifted in a crucifixion "pose", and the final *groan, groan* exorcism attempt by Pryce on Arquette. The whole possession angle—that it could be a priest instead of the devil—seems rather obnoxious because if it is a man of the cloth taking control of Arquette why would he question Byrne's spirituality, make a pass at him, and throttle him to and fro all over an apartment? Why would such spiritual enlightenment occur as if it were pangs and throngs of absolute agony? Ultimately, Arquette speaks in a foreign tongue, pins odd symbols to her wall that reads of the "Gospel That the Vatican Doesn't Appreciate", and bleeds a lot. So many scenes where she's bedridden with blood wiped away by Byrne at her bedside, that damned bowl of water right there to be photographed artistically. There's plenty of extravagant effects, cinematography, sound effects, and a loud score to try and pound away at our sensibilities. I return to Arquette: I think she was good casting in a film that doesn't deserve her, really. Byrne gives his best serious face to all the possession shenanigans that test even the most sincere actor's poise. A considerable waste of Hollywood resources…this is a broken record complaint, isn't it?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILER WARNING: This comment contains specific references to plot elements that reveal the ending. It is strongly recommended that you see the film before reading this review.

    ‘Stigmata' uses as its premise the actual existence of the gospel of Thomas, a gospel taken from a scroll found in 1945, and condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy. This gospel gives essentially the same message as the gospel in the film, that the kingdom of God is of this earth and it is not about heaven, churches or religion. But clearly, the gospel in the film is not Thomas, despite the allusion at the end of the film. Thomas was written in Greek not Aramaic, and has been dated by scholars to the second century, hardly contemporaneous with Jesus. The film is a highly contrived fictional yarn that imaginatively invents a scroll of Jesus' words and then takes the religious mythos of stigmata and combines it with the mythos of possession (in ways not consistent with either) as a device to reveal the plot of the Church to keep the gospel a secret.

    We are asked to believe that an atheist gets stigmata (no such event has ever been reported) as the result of possession by the spirit of a dead human whom she never knew (this is the purview of the devil; human spirits are not thought to possess living beings) because she touched his rosary beads (also touched by her mother, the boy who sold them to her and Father Kiernan without effect). Ok, I guess that's what fantasy films are supposed to do, conjure improbable situations out of the imagination. Still, it takes liberties that distort and misrepresent religious beliefs, which is always risky business. While watching this film, I had to pretend I didn't know what I know. Once over this hurdle, it was an fascinating, engaging and frightening story.

    There are other strange inconsistencies and unanswered questions though. Father Alameida was a good and pious man. Yet he possesses Frankie with an evil vengeance and attempts to use Frankie to sexually seduce Kiernan, beating him from pillar to post when he doesn't consent. That's just not consistent with who Alameida was. Also, why was Frankie strong enough to throw Kiernan around the room like a rag doll, but helpless to stop Cardinal Houseman from choking her? And what was all the dripping water about? If that was explained somewhere, I must have missed it.

    Comparisons between this and ‘The Exorcist' are misplaced. They really had nothing in common other than the fact that the main character was possessed. There is one scene during the rage following Frankie's seduction attempt of Kiernan that had obvious elements of comparison but that was about it. This was not an exorcism and the devil was nowhere to be found.

    From a filmmaking standpoint, this film was terrific. Rupert Wainwright does a marvelous job from start to finish with this film. The photography was fantastic. The use of the camera perspectives, scene set up and various techniques including slow motion, double exposures, rapid fire jump cuts and reverse slow motion were all fabulous (though sometimes used to excess) and added power and impact to create some very scary footage. I've read complaints about the sound, but the sound on the DVD copy I had was great with excellent surround effects. It was a bit loud at times but not so much that I had to ride shotgun on the volume control.

    This was a marvelous breakthrough performance for Patricia Arquette. When she was in Frankie mode she was sometimes arrogant and self centered, and at others sweet, helpless and terrified. When in possession mode she was powerful and frightening. She handled all these states believably and with aplomb.

    Gabriel Byrne also gave a wonderful performance as Father Kiernan. He achieved just the right balance between intellectual skepticism and self doubt with a genuine concern for Frankie.

    Overall, I really enjoyed this film. Yes, the story was flawed, but not irretrievably. As a supernatural thriller it was first rate. I rated it an 8/10. Not for the squeamish.
  • daveisit27 December 2000
    This movie started well giving me hope, but then went downhill after the first half hour. The early potential became clouded with too many inconsistencies, as it struggled to cover its own tracks. By the end it was a laughable movie, with an ending I couldn't care less about.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers.

    First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead – I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought – if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.
  • STIGMATA: Well, this one is certain to be somewhat controversial with hardcore fundamentalist Christians and the equally dedicated Catholic, but I personally found the movie to be far from irreverent, and actually rather faithful in parts. Though the film balances psychological terror and armchair Christian mythology, the movie manages to present a thought-provoking dramatic episode by clashing the faithful and the faithless, the true spirituality and hypocrisy, the sincere and the mundane.

    The film centers on the experiences of a young woman who is a self-professed athiest who manages to somehow be afflicted with The Stigmata, a paranormal experience wherein the "victim" or the "gifted" (dependant upon one's point of view) is afflicted/touched by God and with manifestations of the wounds Christ suffered at His Crucifixion. These include the wounds through the wrists, the feet, the crown of thorns, the scourging of the back and finally the spear through the side.

    Into the mix is tossed a mildly agnostic Catholic priest/scientist assigned by Rome to investigate supposed "miracles." Also blended into the story is a sub plot full of political goings on inside the Vatican and the attraction between the priest and the young woman afflicted. So not only does the movie examine The Stigmata, spirituality, Christian myth, and the Catholic tradition, but it explores the inner workings of the Church (to a very critical degree) and the meeting of man, woman and God. It's also entertaining.

    The movie seems to be marketed as a modern-day "The Exorcist." I don't think the comparison is fair. Though there does appear to be some sort of possession story happening, it somehow ends up being mostly the desperate actions of a benevolent spirit of a deceased priest trying to get attention and bring the Truth to light. Obviously the more fundamental Christian believer familiar with the Christian mythos would find this plot element suspect, and dramatically it's only mildly fulfilling. For this reason the mature and educated viewer might find the ending of the film anticlimactic and arguably "sell out," but the casual viewer would probably find nothing questionable about the Hollywood ending. Personally, I thought it tainted an otherwise splendidly atmospheric film. The integration of Catholic mysticism with MTV-era music video filmography at times seems nearly as visually attractive as Madonna's "Just Like a Prayer" video, though not quite as sublime.

    I'll give the movie 3 stars, mostly solidified by strong dialogue and exceptional performances from both Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne as the woman and the priest. On it's own merits, the film manages to create a foundation from which the viewer is challenged to fill in the blanks re: the spiritual goings-on, but it loses points where it attempts to find cheap thrills and reinvent the spiritual-psychological horror portrayed in The Exorcist by turning an interesting and engaging look at mystic spirituality's interaction with the 20th Century's narcissistic cynicism into something more akin to the later OMEN movies.
  • "Stigmata" deals with religious themes of stigmata and the "Gospel of Thomas," the oldest known gospel, which is considered to be the closest to the teachings of the historical Jesus. It is not included in the "New Testament", and the church considers it to be heretical. Although the film makes some historical and factual mistakes, it is not a documentary but fiction, so we can regard them as artistic freedoms, which, even if they do not contribute to the quality of the film, certainly do not diminish its strength. Patricia Arquette excellently portrays the role of a young atheist whose life is headed upside down by the inexplicable appearance of wounds similar to crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ, and Gabriel Byrne plays a priest sent from the Vatican to investigate her case. The chemistry between them is good and is the backbone of the film, and the powerful explicit scenes of stigmata appearance spice it up with horror atmosphere, although I would describe this movie as a drama rather than a horror.

    7,5/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *Spoiler alert*

    Stigmata is my first DVD movie experience. I'm glad I rented it and didn't pay full theater price to see this schlock fest! Stigmata is entertaining, in a super dumb kind of way but when you start thinking about it, this movie is truly terrible! Pure trash. Good looking trash, though. The title is misleading. Frankie (Arquette) doesn't really experience a true stigmata phenomena but a possession, like The Exorcist, which, for no given reason, manifests itself first as over the top stigmatas. The stigmata moments are ludicrously violent and inexplicably powerful (almost derailing a subway train!?! Yeah, right!).

    Arquette is possessed by the spirit of a dead priest for the most unconvincing reason, a stolen rosery (that belonged to the priest) sent to her by her mother! The film is an insult to anyone with any intelligence, but it's really insulting to Catholics. Stigmatas are the manifestation of Christ's suffering on the cross via the body of the person who is a true believer in the faith. In the movie, Arquette is violently tossed and thrown in every direction like a rag doll, not because she's feeling Christ's pain or because she's a devout Catholic but because she's possessed by the spirit of the priest, who, for no given reason, is capable of creating and using stigmatas to catch Arquette's, the Priests' (and the audience's) attention, all for his life long purpose: he wants to bring down the institution of the Catholic Church with newly discovered words presumably spoken/written by Christ, that are dangerous to the Vatican's existence. Uh? Is this supposed to be good, something to cheer for? Also, why didn't the dead priest try to expose the Church when he was alive? How can the spirit of a mortal priest create stigmatas, something only divine spirits can do? The whole film doesn't make any sense.

    One only has to listen to the Director's comments on the DVD to realize that they had no clue over what they were doing or had any respect for anything. Wainwright's comments have to be heard to be believed. It's so hilarious. The best thing about the DVD. He confuses the film's setting between Pittsburg and Boston. If the director can't get which ever city the story was taking place in, it's no wonder Stigmata is has dumb as it is.
An error has occured. Please try again.