IMDb user comments for
Stigmata (1999) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 38:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

378 comments in total

---

41 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
anti church, but not anti-god, 13 November 2003

Author: dawny1313 from Maryland

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.

---

25 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than you might think, 26 January 2003
Author: Michael Powe (michael@trollope.org) from Naugatuck CT USA

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.

---

29 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
I very underestimated movie, 28 April 2003

Author: Andreas Pada from Turku, Finland

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.

---

13 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Well worth a look, 26 March 2001
Author: James Hodgkinson from Reigate

Stigmata was a very watchable interesting film which is engaging and thought provoking. It's certainly not a perfect movie but in patches was excellent, and the mood of the film was just right. It was suprisingly "non-hollywood" in many respects and very understated if you look beyond the gore of the mutilation and stigmata scenes.

My only major gripe with the movie was the sometimes ludicrous way that characters close to Frankie (Patricia Arquette) seemed unwilling to take her seriously or believe her affliction despite the fact that they witnessed amazing supernatural events first hand. Her best mate who told her to chill out and relax because it was a Friday night, having seen this event earlier in the week, bordered on high farce. Surely all the doctors, clergy and news reporters in the world would have been at her bedside after seeing the train video camera of this event?

Anyway, this aside, many other aspects of the film were first rate and I was pleased the DVD version had the alternate and, in my opinion, better ending (subtle though the difference is). Comparisons with the Exorcist seem to cloud the opinions of many people in relation to this film, and my advice would be just to watch it and take it for what it is. The concept is quite original and the examination of faith and the modern church is interesting. Certainly I wouldn't say the film was anti-religious, in fact in many respects it adds weight to religious belief as the concept introduces the stigmata phenomenom to the audience.

Overall, very good, 7 out of 10.

---

24 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
A clever blend of Christian mysticism and 20th Century narcissistic cynicism, 10 September 1999

Author: jester-30 from United States

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.

---

27 out of 46 people found the following comment useful :-
You missed the point, 22 December 2003
Author: Matt from Canada

I do admit this movie really questions catholic morals but thats not what its about... the film was about showing a diferent a view on catholosism and therefore shouldnt be viewed by catholics who aren't into that type of thing. Its odd but for some reason a book all about the universe and someone who knows all about the universe is written only by onlookers and bystanders. The people who made the movie are not saying that it did or didn't happen but it is possible that these onlookers might have made a mistake on how Jesus and God want us to be. All this movie does is try to make you think deeper about religion, and I love it for that. If your like me you would really like "Dogma" too ;)

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Captivitating religious horror, 20 January 2005

Author: ThrownMuse from The land of the Bunyips

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

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Tests your reaction to noise, but not fear, 25 November 2006

Author: Alban from Montgomery, AL

*** This comment may contain 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.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Do you appreciate movies that make you think? *SPOILERS*, 28 September 2003
Author: Cass from Berea, KY

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Stigmata" is not a horror movie, but it is a religiously-centered suspense thriller that makes you think about your own faith. If you don't, then this movie is not for you. I loved this movie because I was able to sit through it and it made me think about my own walk with Christ.

I think there are so many negative comments for this movie from Americans because it is easier for modern audiences to sit down and flame a movie for what THEY WANT IT TO BE rather than WHAT IT IS.

This movie is about a lot of things; love popping up in the strangest places, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and finding the truth for yourself through your own hard work.

On a personal note, I think Arquette (Frankie Paige) and Byrne (Father Andrew Keirnan) did a fine job bringing their characters to life, and Pryce (Housman) was truly convincing as the Cardinal who wants to keep everything secret. Byrne was the true treasure of the piece- his Father Keirnan was very convincing as a questioning religious scientist.

The confrontation scene at the end between the spirit of Father Alemeida and Keirnan was very poignant and intense. Some people claim that the garden scene from the end is a let down (What did you expect, a mad tongue war in the garden of the church diocese?), but maybe you didn't see the statue of St. Francis and notice the parallelism to Frankie's clothing. She was dressed a lot like St. Francis. Something to remember is that St. Francis was a radical... like Frankie, an atheist who eventually comes to have faith (so says the spirit of Father Alemeida) in Christ and God.

The DVD has an alternate ending that is especially touching. I am glad that they didn't use it, though- it would have made me cry.

This movie made me investigate more into Stigmata- you should too. I'm not even Catholic, but I found a lot of insight into deeply spiritual people through my research.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Religion is supernatural, 7 November 2006

Author: Dr Jacques COULARDEAU from Olliergues, France

An essential approach of religion, of Christianity and yet the film is very disappointing. It is well built, a real thriller all along, yet there are too many lines, threads and we don't know after a while which one is the main thread. Is it the fear of the church in front of the hypothetical Gospel by Jesus himself ? Is it the possession of Franckie by the spirit of Alameida, the priest from Belo Quinto ? Is it the destiny of the priest Andrew who is investigating Franckie's case and ends up protecting her against his own church ? Is it the fate that knocks at Franckie and Andrew's door ? And there are some more. This makes the ending, alternative or not, rather limited. The stigmata are not the real problem at stake here. It is not the resurgence of these stigmata on people who are called for some kind of mission by God himself that is important. In this film it is the fact that this girl who has no real religious belief is seized and even possessed by these stigmata because she has the rosary of the dead priest, a rosary that was sent to her by her mother who bought it at the time of the burial from a local Brazilian boy who had just stolen it from the dead priest's casket. The film thus wants us to believe the feeling of guilt coming from the theft is carried by the rosary and can haunt or possess the recipient of the stolen rosary. This is far-fetched and yet it is a lot more than that because it is heavily linked to the Gospel of Thomas, an apocryphal gospel that would have been the dead priest's possession, and this would represent the fear of the church to be destroyed if it were revealed. Absurd since it has been revealed, since we can find it on the Internet, and the church is far from being dead. In other words the film neglects one thing : faith. A religion is only alive if people believe in it and people will believe in a religion if it is some kind of solace or/and support in their particular lives. This is what is not shown and what is even made senseless in the logic of the film. A dead priest becomes more powerful than God himself, to the point that the orthodox representatives of the Vatican consider the girl as possessed by the devil, and try to exorcise her. In other words the film is kind of fuzzy on logic and messy on details.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

---

---

Page 1 of 38:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history