Reviews

I understand that this film is meant to thrill the viewer. It is not meant to be believable. However, the most unbelievable aspect of STIGMATA is the fact that we, the members of the audience are actually supposed to believe that Patricia Arquette is 23 years old. The age of her character had nothing to do with the story. Why couldn't the character be 30, 40, or older? Is Hollywood so afraid that the ticket buying masses don't want to see anyone older than 25 on the screen? If so, they should actually cast a 20- something instead of insulting our collective intelligence with Ms. Arquette's obviously 30-something face. And who says that only people in their 20's are foolish enough to wear glitter on their eyes, light ridiculous numbers of candles while bathing and wear ugly platform shoes? There are a lot of tattooed, pierced , hair styling 30-somethings out there. Why bother insulting the viewers with the 10 year age reduction lie? Furthermore, unless her character was an heiress, a dope dealer, or a lottery winner, there's no way possible she could afford the apartment we saw in the film. Between the age and the digs, it's a bit of a stretch. I actually found her dilemma believable in comparison.

I just saw this mess on Starz. I'm surprised the producers actually got Jamie Lee Curtis, Billy Baldwin, and (most surprisingly) Donald Sutherland to participate. The reels turn and the rip-offs pile up: Star Trek, Runaway, Aliens. Watching finally became unbearable when the protagonists found they could "talk" to the virus-infected mega-robot. I think this is the kind of dreck that gets dumped almost immediately from first-run theaters in the US to in-flight movies on third-world airlines. But, Donald Sutherland?!?!

See this film especially if you are young enough to think that no one in films had illicit sex, took drugs, or committed psychopathic murder before "Pulp Fiction". This film is a bizarre ride. Never seen anything like it. I recommend it highly!