Q: I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed "masterpiece" of the German New Wave:

1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?

2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.

3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and "experts" assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama.

The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages.

4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.

Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once.
A: negative
Q: Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.

This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliche of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much.
A: negative
Q: I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?
A: negative
Q: I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.

This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable.

My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of "actual" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for "genuineness" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.

The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?

The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends.
A: negative