Stigmata (1999) User Reviews

The messenger must be silenced.

[Jack the Ripper1888 · 7/10 · 15 December 2002]

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.

Captivitating religious horror

[ThrownMuse · 7/10 · 20 January 2005]

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

The Kingdom of God is inside you

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 20 December 2008]

***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!

Better than you might think

[looie · 26 January 2003]

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.

There Are Two Main Problems Here

[Better_Sith_Than_Sorry · 6/10 · 24 May 2020]

...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.

Catholic-bashing biblical horror.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 29 June 2013]

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.

The horror elements were fairly well done, but the weird love story totally distracted this from being what it could have been.

[kevin_robbins · 5/10 · 7 April 2022]

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.

anti church, but not anti-god

[dawny1313 · 8/10 · 13 November 2003]

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.

A good religious movie

[Ahmad_pilehvar · 7/10 · 29 December 2020]

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."

Too Much MTV Influence

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 2 August 2004]

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

I very underestimated movie

[grimsh · 9/10 · 28 April 2003]

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.

Better than my first impression

[cynic701 · 4 February 2001]

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.

Aims Too High

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 5 July 2013]

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.

Good not great.

[pwt221 · 6/10 · 30 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.

Time for red wine

[KuRt-33 · 7/10 · 24 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.

Dug Its Own Grave

[daveisit · 6/10 · 27 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.

A clever blend of Christian mysticism and 20th Century narcissistic cynicism

[jester-30 · 8/10 · 10 September 1999]

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.

"The kingdom of God is within you and all around you. It's not within buildings of wood or stone. Split a piece of wood and you'll find me. Look beneath a stone and I'm there"

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 2 April 2019]

"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

Well worth a look

[vlijames · 26 March 2001]

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.

Best horror film of the year

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 19 June 2000]

I thought this film was a horror film, but it also combined the church in the matter, which makes a film even scarier (if you don't believe me, watch the exorcist). Even if some consider this a comedy (from a theoligist point of view), it is still a hardcore horror film with blood and stuff. Patricia Arquette is great as the un-knowing person who winds up with the wounds of the stigmata (even though she doesn't go to church) and Gabriel Bryne is convincing as the priest who is investigating her problems. Great look into christianity and some crazy man talking scenes from Arquette make this a must see for horror fanatics. By the way, like some other films, the DVD is better than the VHS version. A+

...and to think that I'd never even heard of the stigmata before this movie came out

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 1 August 2006]

When "Stigmata" came out, the previews made it look like a solid horror flick, almost in the vein of "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I was quite surprised when I learned that it had a religious theme. In case you've never heard of the stigmata, they're the wounds that Jesus apparently had when he got crucified.

In the movie itself, Vatican representative Andrew Kiernan (Gabriel Byrne) gets sent to the United States, where punk Frankie Paige (Patricia Arquette) has been experiencing the stigmata. So what is this all supposed to mean? Well, it's a little hard to determine. The movie mostly appears to be looking at Catholic Church cover-ups - and this is before "The Da Vinci Code" - but the graphic scenes of Frankie getting the stigmata sort of overshadow that. And it seems that they were really trying to be as graphic as possible with those scenes.

Another aspect is the fact that someone like Frankie is getting the stigmata. Supposedly, only Catholics can experience those marks, but Frankie is an atheist punk. Maybe that was an allusion to the spread of religion over the centuries, and how it crushed other belief systems.

All in all, I thought that the movie was worth seeing. If it has any problems, it's that - as a previous viewer noted - some characters are underdeveloped. Other than that, it's an interesting look at religion. But be warned: this movie is not for the squeamish. Also starring Jonathan Pryce, Nia Long, Rade Sherbedgia and Portia de Rossi.

Unspeakably horrible

[mhopkins-2 · 1/10 · 9 June 2000]

I count this as without question the worst film I've ever seen. It is completely devoid of any value whatsoever. The characters are poorly portrayed and even more poorly developed. Well acted films allow you to suspend disbelief and accept the fantastic. This didn't even come close.

I wonder if the City of Pittsburgh approved allowing itself to be used as the supposed setting for this film (the portrayal of Pittsburgh in and of itself being just God-awful and clearly not filmed here, or anywhere off a soundstage). If so, shame on Mayor Murphy.

I don't believe anyone spent money to make this. I certainly don't believe I spent a hard-earned $6.50 to see it.

People need to appreciate this movie more.

[nrazran · 10/10 · 20 March 2004]

Stigmata was one of the best films i've seen in a while. I cannot understand why some people claim it is second rate horror movie. The movie is not meant to be horror. It is a story about a woman who experiences the sufferings of Christ, as a representative of a priest who discovered an ancient Gospel (which is in fact, a real gospel that has been denounced by the church as a heresy). It is true that, for people who go to movies to see explosions and knifings and curse words, this might not be a good movie. People who like to THINK at movies and perhaps even try to understand underlying or symbolic meanings should find this to be incredibly interesting. A 6.0? You have to be kidding me.

At least Linda Blair was absent

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 17 January 2002]

Sorta like "The Exorcist", but quite a bit better. Lots of spooky effects without overdoing it like many of this type. I've seen news accounts very much like this which gave the film a more plausible, realistic touch although I never was a believer in all the bleeding statues and faces in holy clothing, etc. Was it demons or God working through the girl? Watch and guess for yourself.

easy to watch despite many flaws

[richeryv · 5/10 · 14 February 2002]

I watched the film for the first time when it was released on video a couple of years ago and once again last week on DVD. I often enjoy Patricia Arquette's acting but this time something did not work out. It wasn't bad acting actually, the trouble is that her character is too shallow and not very well written (…or maybe she was miscast). However, Gabriel Byrne and Jonathan Pryce gave rather good performances and they somehow managed to make up a little bit for it but it did not fully succeed for me overall. The blood and gore scenes were for the most part quite tame, only few of them were really good and you're likely to enjoy them if you're into this sort of thing (they are far from being as good as in `the exorcist' anyway). As far as the score is concerned I rather enjoy this kind of pop-rock soundtrack but only for slasher teen flicks, here it does not blend at all and even sucked sometimes. I guess a classical score would have suited better in some scenes. One last thing, I lived ten years in Brazil and although I do speak the language fluently I could not understand the dialogues in the beginning of the movie… Why ? Because they chose Mexican actors to speak portuguese and it just does not work at all. In my opinion the film is somewhat overrated but still easy to watch despite its many flaws. 5/10 stars P.S. : Watch out for the goof scene when Patricia is in the bathtub, her wrists are already bleeding before the whole goddamn thing starts !