AJ_Nel

"Little Bites" has a unique premise, which flows from a very literal application of the metaphor of addiction being a monster which eats away at you, little-by-little, till one day there is nothing left. Given the almost non-existent budget, the Spider One (the younger Cummings brother, i.e. Not Rob Zombie) / Kirsty Fox writer / director couple, augmented by the much improved cinematography of Andy Patch, did astonishingly well. The set (basically a very cool gothic house) creature - and bite effects, 70's setting, and claustrophobic camera work, created a tense and oppressive atmosphere, which worked very well. Horror screen queens, Crampton and Langenkamp excelled in minor roles, and Sklaroff did the cool measured patronising voice. Fox really gave the performance her all, and her character at times worked brilliantly. However, the script needed a lot of work. Some interactions were written very unnaturally, and the failure to move past the basic metaphor and to run said metaphor is almost criminal. The duality between the visual events and the mental cause thereof needed decent capitalisation and the continuous spoon-feeding of the metaphor, just made a way too long 104 minute film, feel even longer. A mixed bag film, but because of the originality of the idea and the decent visual execution, despite the micro budget, "Little Bites" gets a 6/10.

Anyone who has spent the odd two hours listening to one of those overly civil and stuffy Oxford-style religious debates will agree that they are not particularly engaging and inevitably leads to a stalemate. Here enters the conundrum of, what to do if you have an idea for a film, which plays off the mentioned scenario, and you do not want to bore the pants off your audience. This is indeed what vexed writing and directing duo Scott Beck and Brian Woods (best known for writing "A Quiet Place") for almost three years.

The duo, quite rightly decided on an extremely atmospheric "cat-and-mouse"-type psychological horror, set in an inescapable labyrinthian country house where careful consideration of the question at hand (on a superficial level, the question of the ratio for religion), could mean the difference between life and death. Hugh Grant, as the anti-religion obsessed Mr Reed, is presented as the one side of the debate. And in the Oxford debating style, he is presented as an eloquently spoken, extremely polite English gentleman, who invites two young and naive LDS missionaries (Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) onto his Dante-esque stage, to present the opposing view in the debate.

Mr. Reed however, and much like many a participant in religious debates, is merely looking for confirmation of his views and behind his charming exterior plays a game which is entirely stacked against his opponents and carefully scripted to lead to a very specific and biased result. Simply put, "Heretic" is more a film about the perils of dishonest philosophical endeavour, than a visceral experiment to demonstrate Mr. Reed's perceived ratio d'etre for the existence of religion. That is not to say that the later theme is not cleverly conveyed in the film. In fact, it is the conduit with carries the film and the writing, atmosphere, pace, superb acting, and even the focus of the camera on the listener instead of the speaker, all "congregate" around this theme. Here Beck and Woods do very well to retain tension and foreboding by not getting overly bogged down in the philosophical.

Mr. Reed's sociopathic yearning to bask in his own cleverness and to get to the point where he makes his big reveal comes through very effectively in the early stages of the third act. He is however somewhat easily blindsided by his quarry, who (suddenly) develops highly reasoned Sherlock Holmes-like powers of deduction. The final reveal, which follows this is fortunately pretty open-ended, though somewhat preachy in its counterpoint to that presented by Mr Reed. A novel and well executed film, which both entertains and gives food for thought; this whilst not taking itself too seriously.