I lament what Stigmata could have been. I happen to agree very strongly with the message the movie puts forth, an idea that it could have illuminated a lot more creatively than it did. At the core of Stigmata is a fascinating concept about the nature of the Christian God, based on the real-life Gospel of St. Thomas. That gospel, which has not been accepted as canon by the church hierarchy, may well indicate that humanity would best be able to experience God by looking inside themselves and to the wonders of the creation around them, thus rendering organized religion superfluous. An idea worthy of thought, but one that Stigmata mires down through repetitive storytelling and an overly gritty style. The film seems merely to be a series of loosely connected events rather than a story building to a logical end. (Interesting that the original ending, which strikes me as more appropriate, was cut, but is available on the DVD.) Despite a valiant effort by a talented cast, Stigmata is a film with good ideas but not enough strength to defend them.

RATING

Visually, the movie is exceptional and indeed inventive, especially concerning the drops of water and the mixture of these with blood. The appearance of the doves is a nice symbolic gesture, and the stigmatization scenes are simply unbelievably grand. The acting of both Byrne and Arquette is outstanding, the music fits in as well. So much for the bright side.

I've read and seen quite some abhorring pieces of anti-religious, anti-Christian or anti-Catholic propaganda. Regarding the latter, 'Stigmata' has to count amongst both the bluntest and dumbest attacks against the Catholic Church. Cheap shots are fired constantly, the characterization of father Andrew as a priest who hasn't prayed in a long time screams of stereotyping, of looking for a readily-made, easy-going image, smelling of malevolence, not truth. But malevolence is perhaps the wrong word as there is no knowledge behind it. The criticizing fails to be poignant because it is pointless.

"The kingdom of God is inside you and all around you, not in buildings made of stone.... Break a piece of wood and I am there... lift a stone and you will find me."

So this is supposed to be the utmost dangerous message for the Roman Church? This is supposed to be the "gospel" which could destroy the church? This is supposed to be a "document" which the modern Vatican would desperately conceal, would excommunicate and kill (!) for it, in order to keep it a secret? Someone seems not to have done his homework. Pieces like this are the integral part of Catholic belief. A church may be considered the house of God, but the Church doesn't claim it to be the exclusive home. In Catholic belief also, God is everywhere. Otherwise it wouldn't have made sense for St. Francis to preach to the fish and the animals. The Church, both the institution and the buildings, is the tool to help bring the teachings of Jesus to the people, a message of freedom and deliverance. To trust human beings with this task is always a crucial thing, and the Church, too, has sinned - because it consists of human beings. The Church is not perfect. But it isn't a tool of suppression either.

The accusation the Church would conceal documents which would reveal the "true nature" of Christ is ridiculous. The Church wasn't founded upon writings or gospels either, these appeared later, after the basic teachings had already been developed. There may be dozens of gospels and other supplementary texts, but you have to differ between what is true and what is not. These writings are public, not hidden, but most of them are not in concordance with Christian belief. They may be more interesting for those who intent to destroy the Church, but the findings from such texts would stand against the rest of the entire scripture. But the film doesn't even care to take these really controversial pieces into account, instead, the quote given throughout the text could be found - in this way or another - throughout the official canon as well.

Once the "terrible secret" is out, the movie tries to keep up with becoming melodramatic and overblown, using common elements in order to increase the thrill. The excorcism scene isn't only ridiculous, it is nonsense. But the very misconception is much more fundamental. The film has been criticized for making a non-believer a stigmatic. This is not true. Frankie isn't a stigmatic. She becomes stigmatic when possessed by the spirit of Father Almeida, she becomes the vessel for his stigmata. She is not possessed by God either, not by the truth, but by Father Almeida. The words she writes on the wall are not the words of God, but those discovered by Father Almeida. They are not proven to be true, they are the obsession of the one having discovered the scribblings. This but dwarfes the movie again, making it even less than it could have been. Even more, for those having access to the DVD, the alternate ending is much better than the one used in the finished film, it provides closure instead of cheapening it even more by evading the consequences.

In the end remains a movie featuring great visuals and editing and an amazing overall look, but with a story not only far-fetched but with the least possible amount of intelligence and depth. A piece of worthless garbage were it not for its visual inventiveness. A strange mixture, sadly. It could've been so much more...