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?