Heretic

Hugh Grant ventures into the dense world of theological debate, tackling themes rarely covered on mainstream film. The film is undeniably intriguing, pulling viewers into complex discussions that feel both timeless and urgent. Yet, as I watched, I found myself grappling with an elusive question: was The Heretic a compelling film or merely an ambitious attempt that fell short?

Grant's performance is engaging, but there's an intangible quality missing, something that keeps the movie from fully resonating. Perhaps it's Grant himself, who doesn't quite shed his familiar charm to embody a character steeped in philosophical conflict. Alternatively, it might be the script, which seems torn between delivering an engaging story with a profound message and indulgent lecture through Grant as the medium. This identity crisis leaves the film feeling somewhat ungrounded, making The Heretic a fascinating watch but ultimately difficult to categorise as either wholly successful or lacking.

The supporting cast did an excellent job in quite difficult roles for them to play alongside Grant as the lead.

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.

What else can really be said? The initial premise is interesting and it certainly leaves you wondering what could possibly happen next- especially with a man who just meanders and talks and doesn't directly "threaten". A Very solid first half.

But after the over halfway-ish point of the movie, it felt like it was trying to be smarter than it was with the most generic of truths, and sudden Sherlock Holmes levels of noticing (she noticed, but didn't tell her friend????).

The ending ultimately sours the entire film. Honestly, anything would have been better than the ending we got.

6/10, More than Decent.

In Heretic, Hugh Grant steps into the brooding shoes of Mr. Reed, delivering a performance that's nothing short of captivating. Grant's portrayal, layered with a quiet intensity, draws us into the mystery of Reed's character, skillfully weaving charm and menace. The dialogue is elegantly crafted, with a razor-sharp wit that is self-aware and relatable enough that you can imagine a similar dialogue (and maybe just as scary) happening after thanksgiving dinner between a few salty relatives. It's the kind of banter that delights as much as it disturbs, showing that screenwriters knew how to dance with words and really capitalize on Grant's electric everyman charm.

But, for me, they fumbled the choreography of the plot itself.

The atmosphere in Heretic is ripe with tension, a steadily simmering suspense that feels almost Hitchcockian (I'm being generous, but it's good). Yet, unlike Hitchcock's masterpieces, where each action feels inevitable, Reed's journey teeters precariously on the edge of believability, but never really lands there for me. While we're willing to suspend disbelief for a while, waiting to hear Reed's motivator, the film's premise ultimately strains under the weight of its own ambitions. Mr. Reed's improbable decisions-and the film's insistence that these are plausible-leave one questioning not only his motives but perhaps even the script's own coherence. It's as though the filmmakers were intent on building a labyrinth but forgot to place a satisfying prize at its center. Sure, the payoff leads to Reed's main point, philosophically, but his actions in the end seem so bizarre and unjustified by the plot that I was scratching my head trying to figure out why he didn't just start a skeptics YouTube channel and be done with it.

In the end, we're left with a hollow aftertaste, a sense of having been led to a precipice only to find the bridge unbuilt. While Grant's performance deserves commendation, even his talent can't fully bridge the gap between the film's fascinating setup and its underwhelming resolution.

And, without spoilers, the mild final nod to the OTHER possibility was a weak plot move that feels like throwing a bone to the losing philosophical side on the off chance you offended someone.

In sum, Heretic is a beautiful journey through the maze with Grant manhandling the role from start to finish, even if it leaves you feeling somewhat lost upon reaching its incomplete end.

If only the filmmakers had paid as much attention to plot structure as they did to Reed's impeccable, if confounding, choices, Heretic might have stood among this year's most memorable thrillers.

Whatever I think of THIS movie, I can't wait to see more Hugh Grant in the horror genre. That was a true joy. Also, honorable mention to the two leading ladies who played well off of each other. This movie was never held back by the cast, that's for sure.

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.