Heretic: Subversive to a fault but entirely different

The first thing that would draw a prospective viewer into watching Heretic is probably Hugh Grant’s name. Yes, the same Hugh Grant who made countless viewers swoon in classics like Notting Hill and Four Weddings and a Funeral, while playing the handsome douchebag on some occasions (Bridget Jones’s Diary). The second thing would probably be the ratings which are largely all good. 92% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.3/10 on IMDB look impressive, especially as far as horror ratings go. (Disclaimer: the following review contains vague spoilers)

Both of these facts drew me to Heretic, along with my personal affinity for the horror genre. I was excited, my eyes perpetually glued to the screen and looking for easter eggs and fun clues. When I walked away, though, I didn’t really know what to think.

The first word that came to mind was “subversive.” Directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods present a film that starts with all the hallmarks of a religious horror film.

Religious horror is a sub-genre of its own, which deals with ghosts and demonic possessions (The Conjuring, The Exorcist), sometimes cults (Midsommar, The Wicker Man), and sometimes the corrupt and sketchy church (Immaculate). This film is about none of that. It is religious horror in that it is a horror film that quite explicitly discusses religion. Subversive, right?

Grant as Reed is doing all he can to channel that suave, charming Englishman

Sisters Paxton (Chloe East) and Barnes (Sophie Thatcher), missionaries of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, task themselves with going to the house of a certain Mr Reed (Grant), who registered interest in knowing more about Mormonism. It is blizzarding as the sisters reach Reed’s house, and as soon as they enter, it is clear that there is something wrong. Grant as Reed is doing all he can to channel that suave, charming Englishman (note that this film is taking place in the US) who has now matured and retired. He succeeds for the most part, joking about his rather introverted wife and how he’s in the process of making some fresh blueberry pie.

What follows, then, are a series of increasingly frustrating discussions about religion. Reed makes it very clear he doesn’t really believe in Mormonism, criticising the church’s history with thinly-veiled disdain. It becomes clear to sisters Paxton and Barnes that there is no wife, and soon, they really want to leave.

The best thing about the film lies within that urge to leave. It really tries its best to not have the sisters make foolish decisions for no rational reason, an all-too-pertinent horror cliché. As Reed leaves to pretend to get his wife, Paxton and Barnes make a run for it, resolving to leave without their coats, which have their bike keys in them, and walking to the church in the violent blizzard. The only problem? The door won’t open (of course it won’t).

That shouldn’t be surprising. We knew as soon as they entered Reed’s house, that they weren’t going to leave. They never do.

For some time, it really feels like you’re at debate club, but Sister Barnes’s points are cathartic to listen to

That’s when the film started to lose me. What follows from here on out are a series of increasingly overlong sermons about how every religion is the same concept (we know this isn’t really true, there are many religions, and all are unique in their own right), and how non-belief should be the real religion. Grant’s Reed delivers this message by talking about how Monopoly was a knock-off of the Landlord’s Game, and how Radiohead’s ‘Creep’ is a rip-off of the Hollies’ ‘The Air That I Breathe.’ I will admit, though, there is some humour when Reed sings “I’m a creep, I’m a weirdo,” because of the obvious irony. A sure-footed and determined Sister Barnes categorically rebuts Reed’s points, while a terrified Sister Paxton tries to play nice. For some time, it really feels like you’re at debate club, but Sister Barnes’s points are cathartic to listen to, and it is good that the film explores different viewpoints, since religion is a deeply personal and sensitive topic to begin with.

However, here is when the film appears to lose its sense of direction, getting lost between being a commentary on religion, a slasher film and a psychological thriller. While Grant, Thatcher and East are doing their all with what they’ve been given, it all feels endless. After a certain point, the narrative begins to rely a bit too much on all too frequent plot twists and Reed turns into a textbook comic villain. If the film were to dedicate itself to one of the three aforementioned genres, it might have a clearer and more compelling narrative. As it was, it proved to be more confusing than intriguing, as the tonal whiplash was a smidge too distracting at points.

A humongous highlight is the set—Reed’s hyperbolically humongous house with endless basements, connecting rooms and tunnels

What really works is the way the film makes fun of cliché and subverts viewers’ genre-based expectations. With some great work on atmosphere, and some immersive dialogue from Reed, it’s all very compelling. A humongous highlight is the set—Reed’s hyperbolically humongous house with endless basements, connecting rooms and tunnels. What is unmatched are the acting performances. East’s Sister Paxton plays the naïve but smart character to perfection. Thatcher’s Sister Barnes embodies the character’s confidence and unease. Grant excels in the role of the creepy atheist.

As a final verdict, I would always suggest watching the film and seeing for yourself. For me, I’d recommend giving it a shot—it is a thoroughly immersive experience regardless of its merits and demerits. It will not bore you, and unlike me, you might just adore it. If nothing more, it’s probably going to be like something you’ve never seen before. In a genre susceptible to cliché, such as horror, newness is all the more precious and worthwhile.