Stigmata

Can't believe NOBODY started a thread on 'Stigmata'.
The movie totally hooked me (not even talking about the plot, you guys know how it goes).

The whole concept of a Vatican conspiracy (kind of like that bit from John Carpenter's Vampires)—this idea that they’re covering up the real teachings of Jesus, basically saying the Church as an institution is useless, flawed, narrow-minded, bloodsucking, whatever.

Look, I’m not religious, except maybe in a broader sense. Like, believing in some universal, all-powerful 'entity.' I think religion, despite some good stuff, has done plenty of evil to humanity and we'd probably be better off without it.

Still, the core premise—that there's this secret gospel from Jesus himself, the original gospel by JC, and the message that God is everywhere, under every stone, and we don't need a middleman, a building, an organization, or priests—is just as blasphemous as it is normal. It’s obvious. Why wouldn't it be obvious to believers too?

Someone who actually believes or knows their stuff, please, explain it to me.

As for the movie? It's perfection. Even having damn Gabriel Byrne in it—and he kills it. He plays that priest torn apart by doubt perfectly, plus that quasi-scientist who's supposed to 'prove' or debunk evidence on behalf of the Catholic Church (they're looking for proof, but terrified they might actually find it).

Patricia Arquette—my god, what an actress! She's a thousand times better than her sister, excluding Pulp Fiction. She nails the atheist experiencing Jesus' physical suffering, with those visible manifestations of the 5 wounds of Jesus (fine, 4).

The little flirting with the devil and demons (that scene that rips off The Exorcist where the possessed person speaks in his voice and uses Aramaic, etc.) felt unconvincing and childish to me.

But the shock of someone suddenly going through that, the confusion from society and official medicine, people offering 'answers' like epilepsy—what else?—it's genuinely and brilliantly acted. The refusal to accept an incredible truth and the way everyone pushes you out is spot on. If you're different, if you're weird, you're mentally ill.

The ending was kind of pointless for me—the salvation from the torment, again ripping off The Exorcist (take the soul from me, leave the unbeliever, see, I believe)—felt out of place.

What do YOU guys think about the movie, the acting, Patricia?

The film was solid, though I feel it could have been much more impactful—it leans a bit too heavily into that typical Hollywood gloss, if you know what I mean.
I caught it in the theater, which is, of course, a completely different experience.
I happened to be sitting right next to the speakers, so when those pigeons took flight, the Dolby surround sound actually knocked me onto the floor... Honestly, this constant Hollywood intimidation tactics approach is starting to get on my nerves.
Patricia Arquette was great, but then again, she’s always been pretty fantastic in my book.
And Gabriel Byrne is even better by a long shot.
I can't really give you a deeper breakdown because, frankly, the plot escapes me... I haven't watched it on TV lately, but I did record it.

Kevin Wood22 said:Even if we take the movie's core premise at face value—that there’s this secret gospel written by Jesus himself, an original gospel by JC, claiming that God is right under our feet, everywhere you look, and we don't actually need some middleman, whether it's a building, an organization, or a priest—it's funny how something that seems so blasphemous by today's standards feels so incredibly natural, obvious, and plain to see to everyone else... so why wouldn't it be the same for believers?

I had a feeling, Kevin Wood22, that we might actually find common ground on something once we got past the whole Santa Claus thing... for instance, agreeing that we don't need any intermediaries to reach God, let alone a hypocritical Church or those other organizations that seem to exist just to serve themselves. The movie is pretty great, even with its flaws. I think Jesus was a much more positive and complex figure than the Church portrays him to be; I actually relate to the version of Jesus seen in "The Last Temptation of Christ" or even "South Park"... 😎

Honestly, you watch this just for Patricia... even if the way they handled such a controversial topic was kind of a mess.
There’s definitely enough substance here to make it a solid flick, but it’s like eating a premium ice cream cone—it tastes great for a second, then it melts away and... you pretty much forget it happened.

Look, the Catholic Church is just a human organization. As such, it suffers from the same flaws and struggles as any other institution, performing both good and bad deeds just like people do in general. Perhaps Jesus intended for the church to be nothing more than a communal gathering of believers—a way for people to come together, socialize, and strengthen their faith collectively—rather than a centralized hierarchy that dictates every rule and focuses on maximizing its revenue. That said, I don't think we should entirely dismiss its beneficial role; if the people within it were better, the institution would be more effective at carrying out its positive mission.

As for the movie... Byrne is excellent. He was just as impactful here as he was in End of Days, playing the angel of darkness.👍

And then there’s Patricia Arquette. She plays this hardened atheist who spends her nights drinking and running with the wrong crowd, until she meets the two of them. They probably cast her because they saw how much life she had in her during True Romance when she was going at it with James Gandolfini.😁

All things considered, it’s a pretty good film. I wouldn't say its message is strictly anti-Church, but rather anti-modern religious bureaucracy. After all, the men who uncovered the gospel were priests themselves, and they remained priests throughout the story. It provides plenty of food for thought regarding these issues, which is precisely why it remains one of my favorites. Plus, the plot is engaging enough to present everything quite effectively.

restlesslynx said:Gabriel Byrne is fantastic... even in End of Days, where he plays that dark angel—he's just as striking there. 👍

Yesssssss 🙏 🙏 🙏

boldeagle3 said:Movie was solid, but honestly? It could've been way better. Too much Hollywood gloss for my taste, you know what I mean?
Caught it in theaters once. Totally different vibe than watching it at home.
I was sitting right next to the speakers, so when those pigeons took off, I practically faceplanted onto the floor right in the middle of the Dolby surround setup. Honestly, this whole Hollywood intimidation tactic is really starting to get to me.
Patricia is great, but she’s always just been okay to me. Always kind of mid.
And Gabriel Byrne is still a hundred times better.
Can't give you much more than that. Honestly, I don't even remember the movie that well. Wasn't watching it live on TV, just caught it on my DVR.

Don't be such a chicken, boldeagle3.
Writing this because I'm honestly still a little shaken. Those pigeons and that splash of blood actually rattled me. Maybe you were actually way too close to that damn Dolby theater after all. Who even fears pigeons? Pathetic. Seriously.

Hollywood isn't all bad. Maybe just that desperate need to...
Always ends on a sugar high.
Gabriel Byrne is solid, but what about the rest of it?👎 maybe.
music.🙄
Patricia—yeah, I'm with her on this one.👍

Look, I’m writing this because I genuinely want you to stop being so terrified of jump scares, blood splatter, and pigeons. Speaking from experience—I absolutely loathe blood, needles, anything piercing the skin—there isn't actually much gore here, and it's not even used for shock value. The real horror in this movie is that crushing realization: the anxiety of being someone nobody understands, combined with how much the world just doesn't care about what an individual is going through. It's that feeling of everyone wanting to pin everything on you at once. She slashed her own wrists... yeah, obviously.

There’s nothing to be afraid of here. Just sunny beaches. Maybe some inner darkness, but you don't find that in Brazil—not even in your nightmares. Over there, blood flows like rivers, but everyone’s still fucking happy.👋

restlesslynx said:And then you’ve got Patricia Arquette—basically this hardcore atheist who spends her nights drinking and running with all the wrong guys... and then they end up together. I bet they cast her for this role because they saw how good that blood looked on her back in True Romance when she was going at it with James Gandolfini 😁

Ugh... what a total trip... watching Patricia take charge while things get messy and she ends up breaking the Soprano 👍

storytelj said:I had a feeling Kevin Wood22 and I would end up agreeing on something after the whole Santa Claus thing... like how we don't need some middleman to reach God, least of all a hypocritical Church or those other orgs that only exist to serve themselves. The movie was alright, but not great. Jesus was way more positive and complex than the way the Church portrays him. I vibe much more with the Jesus from "The Last Temptation of Christ" or even "South Park"...😎

Hey there, my buddy Jesus (better than calling him Jesus Christ, just kidding, let's move on!)

We're on the same page, though I'm not even sure if Jesus actually existed. But judging by your handle and your profile pic, you probably saw him firsthand, or at least lived through it.😁
So, I'm inclined to believe he was real.
😁

And yeah, the JC from South Park is top tier.👋

storytelj said:man... what a ride... seeing Patricia take charge like that, especially when things get all messy while she's tearing through the Sopranos 👍

Look, it’s not perfect, but it’s easily one of the best flicks out there.👍

Overall, I found the film enjoyable, though it is certainly plagued by flaws. My primary grievance lies in their failure to effectively handle the core message; they desperately attempt to hammer it home during the finale, yet the beginning and middle of the film fail to provide any meaningful anticipation for it. Furthermore, there is an irritating indecisiveness regarding the cinematography style. On one hand, we are presented with a cohesive "detective" narrative, while on the other, there is an overly ambitious push toward a music video aesthetic—a transparent attempt to manufacture a religious or New Age sentiment because they couldn't extract it naturally from the scenes themselves. The subject matter being tackled is far too complex for a film of this specific genre and energy level; frankly, it feels more suited for a documentary...

That said, the film does possess an atmosphere—forced, admittedly, but present—stemming from the score, the production design, and the camerawork. We owe much of this to Gabriel Byrne, who seems almost tailor-made for these types of roles (he was excellent in End of Days, after all), and even Patricia Arquette delivers a solid performance, bringing a non-standard character type rarely seen in the films we typically consume.
At times, the movie becomes grating when it starts overdoing those repetitive droplets eighteen times throughout the runtime, but one cannot deny certain extraordinary scenes that evoke a sense of holiness, mystery, and genuine horror, leaving a powerful impact on the viewer.

Kevin Wood22 said:My dear, fearful boldeagle3,
I am writing this to you, genuinely stunned by the realization that pigeons and a little bit of blood managed to scare you quite so intensely. Well—perhaps you were just a little too close to that damn Dolby sound system (I mean, who actually fears pigeons? Honestly, what a joke...)

a) Hollywood—not everything about Hollywood is bad, except perhaps that desperate urge to
ALWAYS sugarcoat the ending
b) Gabriel Byrne is great, but otherwise? 👎 Maybe in
music🙄
c) Patricia—we agree👍

I write this to you with respect, along with a sincere hope that you stop being afraid of certain sounds, images of blood, or pigeons. Speaking from my own experience—and I absolutely loathe blood, needles piercing skin, and all that—there isn't much blood here, and it certainly isn't used for cheap scares. This film is really about a terrifying realization: the anxiety of an individual who isn't understood, who doesn't understand themselves, and the sheer indifference of a world that just wants to dump everything onto one person—you even pierced your own wrists, didn't you? Yeah, how else?

There is nothing else to fear here, sunny beach... except maybe the darkness within, though there’s none of that in beautiful Brazil—not even in the summers. Over there, they have rivers running with blood, but everyone is still fucking happy!!!👋

😕
And you really went there...
It wasn't the pigeons at all, it was the sheer volume that shook half the theater. FUCKING DOLBY!
As for the blood, it doesn't scare me. I don't recoil from it, nor do I look away when a needle—or in this case, a nail—pierces a wrist.
Byrne is top-tier for me! 😁
But that part where she pierces her own wrists? That was some absolute bullshit that honestly left me stunned.

The movie is mindless.
Utterly brainless.
It reminds me of some flick I saw at the local AMC years ago; two weeks later, I couldn't even tell you the plot.
But, as someone else already pointed out:

Byrne was great

boldeagle3 said:😕
Man, you really went there...
It wasn't even about the pigeons, it was the damn volume shaking half the theater. FUCKING DOLBY!
And blood doesn't scare me. I don't flinch or look away when they show a needle piercing skin (or in this case, a nail through a wrist).
Byrne is awesome to me! 😁
The idea that you'd actually want to pierce your own wrist? That's some brain-melting bullshit right there.

Look, boldeagle3,
so you're brave, huh? Not afraid of a little needle (what are you, tough?)🙂 )
But honestly, I actually dig Doby—I can still recall his songs, even the music videos!👋

Real talk though, the movie was great. The vibe, the acting, even those fucking
droplets (except for the ending)

I didn't mind the rambling dialogue; I mean, that's just how the theme goes.

And for me, the peak was that underground whipping scene.
👍 👍

Keyboard's acting up again, my bad
So, Dolby... kid genius and all that
Ubiquitous in every single American theater😎

Kevin Wood22 said:Dear boldeagle3,
so, you're brave—you aren't afraid of the needle (though what exactly are you doing with a needle🙂 )
and honestly, I actually find Do(l)by quite charming—I even remember some of his songs, and music videos too!👋

But in all seriousness, the movie is excellent—the atmosphere, the acting, even those damn
raindrops (except for the ending)

it didn't bother me at all that the dialogue was a bit rambling... then again, that’s just the nature of the subject matter—

and my absolute favorite part? That whipping scene in the underground club.
👍 👍

I might be on something, but it isn't a needle🙄
Do(l)by😁 is fine in any context, provided they don't overdo it. You know, I showed up to the theater to sit in a seat and watch a movie, not to end up face-down on the floor from the sheer volume of the sound😲 😁 😁

boldeagle3 said:I'm on something, sure, but it's not like I'm tripping. 🙄
Dolby 😁 is fine and all, just tell them not to go overboard. Like, I went to the theater to watch a movie, not to have my eardrums pulverized by the floor shaking. 😲 😁 😁

So what's your deal then, boldeagle3?

Kevin Wood22 said:I mean, what exactly are you even thinking, boldeagle3?

🙂 😁
on the sand

I have a soft spot for Stigma.
That movie really hit home for me; it was my first real introduction to those "forbidden" gospels. I haven't been able to shake those few lines from Tombstone since.
Plus, Father Keenan is absolutely wonderful.

boldeagle3 said:🙂 😁
on the sand

you're on my sand, right?😁
love that fine, wet sand. honestly, even the stuff in the Sahara isn't bad, though it just ends up clogging every single pore and crevice you've got😁 😁