Heretic (Hereje)

I am going to echo what some others have said. The first half of this movie is brilliant. It lost me about halfway through, though. I wish so much that the writers would have chosen a different path. Heretic could have been one of the most genius movies ever written if their villain would have been a different sort and had different motivations. While hard to choose a number for this movie, I think I'm feeling 6 1/2. Great acting. Great cinematography. And, like I said, brilliant script in the first half. A thought-provoking film until it isn't. Also, the ending is more ambiguous than I would like it to be. If the whole movie were like the first half, this would be a solid 9. But alas.

I enjoyed this a lot.

It's creepy and sinister and had me guessing right up to the climax.

Hugh grant is really excellent. He is darkly mischievous, charming and unsettling. Both Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East give fantastic turns too and are ably directed by the duo of Scott Beck and Bryan Woods who craft a really sinister feeling movie.

It's an atheists wet dream and some of the exposition will trouble people of all kinds of faiths but it isn't really a critique of religion so much as an in depth look at manipulation, psychology and the impressionable nature of the human condition.

It's unlike anything I've seen and I enjoyed it quite a lot.

I'm not sure what I was expecting from Heretic, but it certainly wasn't deep theological discourse and intense religious diatribe courtesy of Hugh Grant. Not that I have a problem with that: when Grant's character, Mr. Reed, is challenging the doctrines of organised religion, the film is actually very engaging and frequently funny, the actor putting in a marvellously offbeat performance, Reed frequently making a lot of sense. Of course, this is a horror film, so even though a lot of what Grant's character says seems logical, the extremes he eventually goes to to prove his point are not at all reasonable.

Chloe East and Sophie Thatcher play Mormon missionaries who pay Mr. Reed a visit with the hope of converting him to their religion. Reed, however, has his own sinister agenda. What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, the missionaries desperately trying to reason with their host while trying to find a way to escape from his home.

The film's strongest scenes are those in the first half of the film, in which Reed disquietingly questions the girls' beliefs while positing plausible alternatives - Grant is both affable and subtly menacing. Much of the first hour is simply conversation between Reed and the missionaries, and yet it is superbly unsettling, hinting at the man's craziness without going over the top. The latter half of the film is slightly less effective, visceral horror replacing the verbal dread, but it is still entertaining, and the film closes leaving the viewer with plenty of food for thought.

7/10.

This was an engrossing and intriguing movie. It played with tropes and mixed them up.

Annoying missionaries, and to the missionaries the annoying 'customer' who wants to debate at length.

The film played expertly with the sense of unknown and the accompanying dread that was created from it.

Hugh Grant's Mr Reed playing so well at walking the line but not crossing it. Moving things forward without giving an inkling of where it was going. Giving the impression of choice but was there really any?

Where it faltered for me was in the 3rd act where it revealed probably too much about him. Just another nutter, but wouldn't it have been cool if we were never quite sure.

I loved that they toyed with the current dilemma of not know who to trust about what. Things seems bad but then they gave a plausible explanation etc etc. We're engulfed in it and there is no clear sign that one party still holds to reason logic and honest over the other.

A world of Plausible lies, or is it the truth? You simply can't tell any more.

The script was detailed and pop culture referential.

Lots of clever asides, ("You're thinking of the butterfly effect").

I liked the ambiguity a lot, and the central "what's in the afterlife" conundrum, or was Reed basing his con on that set up? It was intriguing, and I was buying it.

It was almost a runaway original and innovative great script apart from a handful of loose end points which took it down several notches from the very high standard it set for itself.

Where it fell down was the very quick lesson about "the one true god". I didn't follow the reasoning and up to this point it played very well. Then the caged entourage who "do it willingly"? That was an interesting point not sold very well either. I loved how it tied to the following of religion, but it lost me here too.

And the final failing was the saviour who managed to bleed out but then climb several stairs deliver a death blow, although it wasn't clear what Reed was trying to do at this point anyway, and then he passed away.

This could have been a timeless great movie if they'd managed to solve a few niggling contrivances.

As it was it was better for the questions it asked, thought experiments and warping tropes.

Heretic is as unpredictable as it is messy. While the film keeps you on edge for most of its runtime, the plot begins to fizzle out in the final act.

Hugh Grant delivers a standout performance, with Sophie Thatcher and Cloe East also shining in their roles. The director, cinematographer, and set designer deserve credit too, as they gradually immerse you into the growing madness of Grant's character and his eerie home.

Unfortunately, the plot is the film's weakest point. The tension and mystery build beautifully at first, but around the two-thirds mark, it starts to unravel. The climax left me slightly underwhelmed, as I was expecting something more profound. Still, 'Heretic' is an excellent horror film in its own right - enjoyable, but not quite as memorable as I had hoped.