Tetrady not as good as all the hype

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

atinder Stigmata (1999)I thought I already seen movies once and could not remember anything from it before. So I gave this another got, I must of this movie confused with another movie, how could i forget about everything in this movie, it was awesome movie. I loved the movie started nice slow start with some strange happens and the movie flowed really well, Some of those scenes were really well made, and sometime it's really powerful scenes and scary at the same. The whole movie strange good feel, it creepy at times and scary at timesThe whole was a lot of fun to watch 8 out of 10 great movie

Scarecrow-88 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?

cousinoleg Yesterday stumbled upon this movie, and seeing how it's related with faith in Jesus Christ, i decided to give it a try. Bad idea - instead of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people, it went for the easy route, providing flashy SFX, mixing secular humanism and religious mysticism, offering heretical theology, and possibly ripping you of your money and time for nothing of substance. A woman starts having stigmata, and the priest sent to investigate it somehow deduces it's a gift from God, though no such thing is ever mentioned in the Holy Bible, though it may have been present in later church history as some sort of religious show-off. Maybe this tries to show God as a sadist (a favorite argument of militant atheists), though it seems to me, the woman was possessed by an evil spirit, transferred to her, from a heretical priest. There are cases in New Testament, where evil spirits torture people, and Jesus expels them from their victims. Instead of exorcism, the priest-scientist, who confesses he hasn't prayed in a long while, gets a badly-acted/questionable romantic liking of the possessed woman, though she gets more and more signs of Hollywood possession - weird voice, creepy eyes, screaming wildly, then writes the supposedly "most true Gospel of Jesus Christ". Who would believe that a creepy demon-possessed human, bent on violence, is telling the true Gospel of Christ? God is almighty and wouldn't need to wait two thousands years to write the "true" Gospel in a language, almost nobody can read. The only good idea in this movie is to rely on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, from the New Testament, instead of religious rites and buildings and to beware of new pharisees among the believers. In the end after a ridiculous murder attempt (by catholics, of course) and a quarrel for the "true gospel" or "saving the church", fire SFX and bleeding statues, the priest-scientist suddenly remembers how to exorcise, though the evil spirit is shown to be the soul of a heretical priest, which is not biblical.In the end, the hidden "true gospel" is found, but its secret sayings are laughable and were clearly ripped off from existing Gospels and Old Testament scripture: "God is in rocks and logs, but somehow not in churches" saying, smells of new age and is useless; maybe it's a confused interpretation of Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:48; - "God's kingdom is in you" saying was already in Luke 17:21;Also a conclusive text speaks about Nag Hammad library discovery with the Gospel of Thomas, which if compared (together with this movie) with the current four Gospels, will prove Nag Hammad's heresy.NOTE: I've been speaking with some atheists once, trying to tell them about the Gospel. They categorically refused to listen, resorting to the usual "fairy tales" and "contradictions" arguments; but somehow they were all accepting that Nag Hammad religious writings were the "true gospel", but refusing to reveal their methods of deducing the truth. For a true gospel method, read 1 John 2:22. This i hope will tell of the lack of Christian value of this movie and those pseudo-gospels.Thanks to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, for giving us the true Gospel as described in the New Testament; and pity for those people that hate Jesus Christ and his followers and desperately try to confuse and destroy them. May God bless and help these militant antichrists to leave their angry futile struggle and return to God and receive his love and forgiveness.

sango_miroku It has been years since I first watched this film, however, I never watched the trailer before hand. My dad suggested it to me shortly after its DVD release as I wouldn't have been old enough at the time.It was an incredible film that left me feeling tense, not scared at any points to recall, I really don't believe this film was meant to be a horror at all, so anyone reviewing it as "Not scary enough" doesn't really make sense to me... this film has a strong storyline with interesting characters, jumpy BOO scenes would ruin the atmosphere of the film.The alternative endings are interesting to watch too... I remember feeling teary at points in the film, it also felt rather psychological to me, which I love films like K-Pax and Mysterious Skin for as well. I think if you want more of an alternative "Horror" film, this is definitely a recommended one. But don't expect to feel scared...The only major fault I had was the trailer, which I watched recently when trying to explain to my boyfriend why this should be added to one of our "Movie nights". MY GOD WAS IT A BAD TRAILER. No wonder people felt disappointed/mislead. The trailer to me implies it will be a jumpy film and tries to be far too much like the Exorcist, when honestly it is nothing like The Exorcist in my opinion.I was incredibly shocked to see this only has a 6 rating... I was expecting to see around the 7.5-8 mark for this... So please, don't judge it by the trailer. Or the reviews about it not being scary or not a lot happening, it's not meant to be that type of film.It also has a fantastic soundtrack!