Heretic

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.

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.

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.

If like me you watched this movie because you wanted to see Hugh Grant play a creepy villain, then you won't be disappointed.

Heretic is the story of 2 young Mormons visiting the house of Mr Reed, Played by Hugh Grant. However, things aren't what they seem.

Out the gate, you meet the 2 Mormon's, Sister Barnes played by Sophie Thatcher and Sister Paxton player by Chloe East. For me personally, I came into this movie for the Hugh Grant show, but these 2 actresses held their own and both gave a great performance. With this movie only really consisting of 3 characters, it's important that 2/3rds of the cast deliver, and they did! Sophie Thatcher's character, Sister Barnes, I'd say is the more in-depth of the 2 Mormons and is the more experienced of the 2. Chloe East's character, Sister Paxton, who is the newer missionary who feels like more of a believer than her counterpart and is eager to convert and spread the word of God. Both their performances mainly consist of being terrified of Mr Reed and fortunately neither fall into the dumb protagonist trope.

Now for Mr Reed, played by Hugh Grant. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how Hugh Grant plays this character so well. Because the way he acts isn't innately creepy or scary in any way. It's more of a case of context that makes Mr Reed creepy. The way he delivers his dialogue is so calm and, in a way, like he's giving a lecture. Which he is. He's trying to educate and enlighten the 2 Mormons. The way Mr Reed gave me the ick was the way he's condescending and speaks down to you. That and the fact we're in a strange spooky house, where the lights are on a timer and the ceiling is dripping. Mr Reed just feels off!

Above I mentioned the dialogue. Writers/Directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods wrote Heretic beautifully. Giving each character their own identity through their dialogue. Heretic had great cinematography with effective use of close ups and panning shots.

Sounds design was simple yet effective. The sound of creaking floorboards, drips, and old metallic locks and doors really punctuated the idea of this being an old rustic house.

Now this is a spoiler free review, so I'm not going to discuss this part too much, but one aspect of the movie I wish they'd explore more of was the idea of the labyrinth. The figurines and the model labyrinth are featured in the poster and the movie trailer but aren't all that important in the movie. So, if you were expecting a horror like labyrinth movie, then I'd be disappointed. That being said, the set was quite minimal, not much to really discuss. But what was there was simple and effective.

The key theme of Heretic is religion and belief. This movie does a great job at showing both sides of the coin without feeling like it's favouring or attacking one opinion over another. It managed that balancing act well, which is important, as to not feel like it's attacking its audience's point of views or believes.

I will say that I didn't think the movie was that scary. That doesn't bother me much, but it was released around Halloween and was advertised to be a horror movie, so that may affect your enjoyment of the movie, depending on what you were expecting. I'd say it leans more into the thriller mystery elements, which is more my cup of tea.

Overall, I enjoyed Heretic. Didn't feel too long and went at a brisk pace.

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.