Stigmata

Rating:
Summary: Creepy thriller reexamines present-day faith and the Church
Review: "Stigmata" is a thought provoking, if sometimes religiously confused, MTVesque journey through the possession/stigmata of Frankie Page (Patricia Arquette), a twentysomething atheist raver who suddenly exhibits stigmata (the wounds that Christ received on the cross) after receiving a recently deceased priest's rosary in the mail (her name, combined with later symbolism (the doves feeding from her hands, the statue of St. Francis in the garden), is an obvious nod to St. Francis of Assisi-one of the original working titles was "St. Frankie of Pittsburgh"). However, director Rupert Wainwright appears fundamentally confused on basic issues, confusing stigmata (which appear to devout Christians) with possession (Frankie speaks in tongues, stabs herself, levitates, and scribbles in Aramaic on the walls).

Gabriel Byrne is fantastic (as usual) as Father Andrew Kiernan, an Irish organic chemist turned man of the cloth, who is sent around the globe to investigate bleeding statues and religious sightings. Frankie has an attack in the subway that is witnessed by a priest, and word filters down to the Vatican, where Father Kiernan is hastily reassigned after discovering an authentic bleeding statue of the Virgin Mary in Brazil. Angry at being silenced, Kiernan arrives to find Frankie seeing hallucinations, hearing voices, and sporting some gaping holes in her wrists (the hospital staff fears self-mutilation and suicide attempts) that continue to bleed.

The film follows the pair as Frankie's condition deteriorates and the attacks become more violent as another mystery, this one inside the walls of the Vatican, unfolds. The "Stigmata" tagline says it all: the messenger must be silenced. The explanation for the phenomenon is unexpected, as are the two different endings: the theatrical ending and the director's ending. Due to poor test screenings the theatrical ending was substituted, but Wainwright's ending fits in more with the predictions of Father Andrew. There are several deleted scenes, including an alternate opening that explains Father Almeida's death. Factual errors run rampant, including Father Kiernan's assertion that no one had ever received all five stigmata (untrue, St. Francis received all five at once), that St. Francis of Assisi was 23 when he first received the stigmata (he was in his forties), and the fact that Cardinal Houseman wears a goatee (prohibited by the Vatican).

The visuals are striking if overwhelming. Multitudes of candles are present in almost every shot, as is water, doves, and blood. The scenes of Frankie receiving the stigmata are almost seizure-inducing-strobe lights, split-second flashes of nails being hammered into wrists, Frankie's bloodied face from several angles, all without transitions, rushed and drowned in a hard-rock soundtrack (the visuals alone built up a sufficient atmosphere of foreboding; the hard rock was overkill) penned by Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan. Sinead O'Connor and the Afro-Celt Sound System contribute, as does Natalie Imbruglia, and David Bowie.

"Stigmata" is entertaining, although it is extremely violent, gory, contains graphic sex, and is easily religiously offensive. There really is no Satanic demonic possession, rather something using Frankie as a messenger for good (albeit with extreme Machiavellian means). The movie casts a less than flattering light on the Catholic Church and the Vatican, and seems to glorify Frankie's hedonistic lifestyle. But the stigmata and Father Kiernan inevitably leave a large impact on Frankie's life, Frankie, who was once so self-assured in her partying ways and the non-existence of God. As the messenger she utters these words from the gospel of St. Thomas: "The kingdom of God is within you and all around you. It is not within buildings of wood or stone. Split a piece of wood and you will find me. Look beneath a stone and I am there." Although at times it looks like an outtake from Madonna's "Like a Prayer" video, "Stigmata" is thought provoking and visually stunning.

Rating:
Summary: Good Movie - Better Food for Thought about relegion
Review: I enjoyed the movie; the acting, special effects and entertainment level were enough to keep me glued to the TV. For 2 hours. This movie more than for entertainment value should make people question at least the Catholic faith. I believe in God I always have, but I have never bought into the belief that you have to belong to a church or a certain religion to be with Jesus. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls there has been controversy and this movie raises the question if the Vatican has been forthcoming about the interpretation of the scrolls or if they have held something back in fear that the truth would unravel the Vatican and the Catholic religion as a whole.

I don't have the answer I just live by the motto "question everything". You may never know the answer but it is everyone's responsibility to "find out for themselves" to the best of their ability.

Rating:
Summary: Stigmata
Review: This has got to be the worst movie ever made. The acting is horrible and the script is horrible. 2 hours of my life I will never get back. What a waste of time! I wouldn't even rate it one star if I could! It's just that bad.

Rating:
Summary: Worst theatrically released horror film of 1999.
Review: Gabriel Byrne is a Vatican priest investigating stigmata wounds that appear on an American atheist woman (Patricia Arquette). Potentially good premise is given the ham-fisted, no subtlelty approach, with a script that has no idea what it's trying to say, not to mention also featuring a distinct lack of intelligence. The direction is just as bad, with MTV-style and rapid-cut editing in place of genuine filmmaking. Ironically, this was released the same weekend as Stir of Echoes, the best pure horror film of the year. Watch that movie instead.

Rating:
Summary: Good Supernatural Flick
Review: I need to address some comments made by Pat McCullough. I agree that the film takes some liberty in saying that the Gospel of Thomas predates the New Testament. At the very least it comes from the same period as Mathew and Luke. However, it shows a striking resemblance to the hypothetical source document for those gospels, the "Q", which must have existed in parallel to the Gospel of Mark for Mathew and Luke to be written. It is this still hypothetical Q Gospel that may have possibly predated even the earliest version of Mark, which was probably written around 40 AD. And Coptic is considered a form of Egyptian, not Greek. A fragment of an earlier version written in Greek had already been discovered, so it is presumed that the original language of the Gospel of Thomas is Greek, which makes sense if one assumes it to be a partially Gnosticized version of the Q (Gnostics were like a cross between the Greek Sophists and early Christians). The idea that Jesus was anti-orthodoxy, however, is not a uniquely Gnostic trait and still survived to some degree in the New Testament. So even if one throws out the goofy anti-flesh & circular philosophy portions of Thomas, you could still end up with a resemblance of the Q Gospel saying such things as "the kingdom of heaven is inside you and all around you, but you do not realize it". So in this sense I think the film is still not too far off the mark. (no pun intended)

Rating:
Summary: Supposed to be a horror/thriller. Intstead it's just silly.
Review: Despite a good performance by Patricia Arquette, cast as a working-class hairdresser in Pittsburgh who receives a rosary as a souvenir and somehow experiences Christ's wounds, this film is a loser. The subject itself might have been intriguing if it was anyway near what Catholic theology actually is, but the filmmaker got it all mixed up and targeted the film towards the outrageous and impossible. There's supposed to be a conspiracy to keep Christ's words from the faithful and there's also some sort of satanic possession going on which keeps the special effects people busy. Gabriel Byrne plays the priest who tries to help her and also is attracted to her, but he's just about as believable as the rest of this awful story. It's true that the film did move fast and held my interest, but only because it was so strange. I give this a "thumbs down". Don't waste your time.

Rating:
Summary: a very creepy yet interesting movie
Review: i think this movie freaked me out because it felt to me that it could acually happen. it also made me think of acually what that church is hiding. i also thought it had a very powerful message and i really loved it.

Rating:
Summary: Deception in the Vatican or Hollywood?
Review: I have to admit to my conflict watching this movie. On the one hand, there is the quality of the movie. There is a wonderful realism in the acting and much of the script. The effects were well done. In general, I was captured and penetrated by the majority of the film. It reminded me a lot of The Third Miracle (see it, if you haven't). It was not afraid to tackle big issues and wrestle with problems in the established church, while it also recognized the world of the supernatural. However, on the other hand, I have a problem with the message behind the movie and the misrepresentation of facts. I am not against movies challenging the Church. The Church needs a good challenge; it has many problems. Rather, it is a poorly based and misleading challenge that I have quibbles about.

I noticed the familiarity in the words Frankie spoke early on in the movie. "That sounds a lot like the Gospel of Thomas," I said to myself. Indeed, it was. It was an inaccurate portrayal of the Gospel. As the closing words of the film tell us, it was found in the library at Nag Hamadi. However, it was not written in "the language Jesus spoke" (Aramaic), but rather in Coptic, a form of Greek. It is not believed to be written in the first century, the century of Christ, but rather in the second, further removed than the four Gospels of the established New Testament canon. This is not to mention the content of the document itself. It is not a challenge to established religion, so much as it is a challenge to human flesh. It is a Gnostic Gospel. Gnosticism, condemned by the early ecumenical councils, held that flesh is evil, and that salvation is the escape from the flesh. They also held that Jesus was solely divine and zero human. This early heresy as well as this document has been rejected because of its irrationality, not because it is a challenge to the way the institution of the Church is run. **Ironically, "stigmata" is an affirmation of arguably the most human aspect of Jesus, his death, which the Gospel of Thomas would deny ever happened.** Of Adam, the Gospel would have us believe that "had he been worthy, he would not have experienced death" (85). Strange how the movie uses the two together.

At the close of the film we are told: "This scroll...has been claimed by scholars around the world to be the closest record we have of the words of the historical Jesus... [new screen] ...The Vatican refuses to recognize this Gospel and has described it as heresy." These "scholars around the world" are few and far between. It is not merely the Vatican which describes it as heresy, but the majority of the Academy as well. If, indeed, the claim is true, then one account of Jesus' teaching goes a little something like this:

"Simon Peter said to him, 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said, 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'" (114)

The words that were quoted from the scroll in the movie were a pick & choose method, taking sentences from the beginning and middle and making it sound as if that were how it opened and continued throughout. But the document is a little strange and disconcerting, not having anything to do with the point of the movie. The theme dealt with in Stigmata was a genuine one, one that needs attention. **However, the producers are guilty of the very thing they accuse the church of: deception and misrepresentation.** I fear that many have been led astray in thinking this movie's foundation was based upon something of a true story. I don't see how an uninformed viewer could read the interpretative script at the end and conclude otherwise. It was a good movie, but a deceptive one. Perhaps if it were honest, it would have been worth 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Two great movies blended into one makes a bland mush.
Review: I liked this movie for the acting, the cinematography, the dialog, and the editing. Unfortunately the plot had either serious holes in it, or it just wasn't very good. I have a hard time deciding which with this movie.

The plot involves a very compelling and interesting cover-up in the Vatican that provides a fascinating backdrop for what could be an equally interesting "What if ancient miracles manifested themselves in modern America." The problem, it seems, is tying the two together. The explanations for the events given where either weak, or confusing. Why was an atheist afflicted with stigmata? What was the Vatican so desperate to cover up? Why was such a high level priest driven to such unchristian behavior? These questions are answered, but rather unconvincingly. I hope the plots introduced here are re-examined by a new film team, and given the deep examination they deserve. I would even like to see the same cast.

Rating:
Summary: Absurd plot, of course, but still chilling horror flick
Review: Stigmata did well at the boxoffice, and I can understand why. Despite its ridiculous plot, it comes off as a well made horror/thriller. It should please many of the genre's fans.

Father Andrew Keirnan was a scientist before he became a priest. He has an interesting job. He works directly for the Vatican and travels the world checking out reported visions and miracles. Most of these turn out to be bogus, but in South America, he witnesses an event that he cannot disprove. Upon the death of a priest there, a statue of the Virgin Mary in the local church begins to weep blood. While all this is going on, a boy steals the dead priest's rosary and sells it to an American tourist, who sends it to her daughter as a present. As soon as it arrives, the girl begins to experience a condition know as the stigmata. She begins to suffer the wounds that Christ suffered on the cross. What makes it all the more mysterious is that the girl isn't Catholic. In fact, she doesn't even believe in God. Father Keirnan becomes involved in ways he never dreamed possible. And a Cardinal back in Rome is willing to do anything to hush the whole matter up.

Patricia Arquette is marvelous as the victim, Frankie Page. She throws herself into the role, and while it isn't a part worth losing sleep over, I can't help but admire Arquette's energy. She should have a long and successful career. Gabriel Byrne gives his usual serviceable performance as Father Keirnan, a man who long ago lost his own faith. Jonathan Price is suitably creepy as the nefarious Cardinal Houserman, while Nia Long does okay in the thankless role of Frankie's best friend.

This brings us to the fly in the ointment - the plot. The Catholic church was particularly upset over Stigmata. I'm not Catholic, so to me it was basically just another movie. Still, the whole thing is illogical, and I suspect that the screenwriter was either a former Catholic with something against the Church or someone who didn't do their research. The stigmata is supposed to be the blood of Christ. It would seem that, if such an experience really occurred, it would bring the person to a higher plane of existence. Instead, after a particularly horrific episode, Frankie and her friend decide that the best idea is to go to the local disco. After all, it's Friday night. Later, Frankie goes through a demonic possession straight out of The Exorcist. This scene is in total opposition to the original notion that she is made to suffer for the purpose of some greater good. The story becomes a muddled mess of theological mayhem, but I do not think the Church will suffer any irreparable harm from this Hollywood Stigmata.