Heretic

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.

What the hell is Hugh doing here? Hugh doesn't belong here...

Or maybe, just maybe, Hugh does belong here! Maybe horror is Hugh's true calling, and did he waste 30 years of his career on romantic comedies! That's an exaggeration, of course, and I still love most of his silly rom coms. Fact is, though, that Hugh Grant gives away a perplexing performance as the disturbing and terrifying villain in "Heretic".

There's a lot more about Scott Beck & Bryan Wood's "Heretic" that deserves praise and attention! I didn't expect a horror script full of theological enquiries and debates, and I most certainly didn't expect that I would be so fascinated by the subject! Perhaps it's purely thanks to Hugh Grant's uncanny charisma as Mr. Reed, and the way he intimidates and petrifies two innocent young Mormon girls that show up on his doorstep, but the more talkative "Heretic" became, the more I loved it. Reed is like an eloquent big bad wolf, preying on two cherubic but naïve Little Red Riding Hoods. It's an absorbing thriller spectacle that keeps you gazing at the screen with amazement for half the film. And you know what's most intriguing? Many things Reed says about various aspects of religion make total sense!

When "Sisters" Barnes and Paxton are lured into Reed's eerie basement, "Heretic" maneuvers into more familiar and grotesque territory. Theory is put into practice and verbal terror turns into physical horror, which somehow makes the film less unique. Some action was necessary, I reckon, and luckily "Heretic" remains entertaining and suspenseful throughout.

PS: the link with Radiohead's "Creep" in the first couple of lines isn't coincidental. The film makes great use of the brilliant song, as well as of "The Air that I Breath" by The Hollies.

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.

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.

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.