Film review: Heretic

THE horror film Heretic (Cert. 18) asks us why we believe what we believe. Who or what forms the basis of our faith? The Mormon missionaries Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) face such devilish questions from the beguiling Mr Reed — Hugh Grant turning darkness up to full throttle here.

The young women come across as real people. We have previously learned how watching a porn movie led the rather gullible Paxton to faith. Unlike some other films, though, this gives Mormons (East is closely associated with them) a fair hearing. Answering a message to discuss their religion with Reed, they are no slouches articulating their beliefs.

The host, inveigling them into his remote house, rapidly begins a game of cat-and-mouse. He is superficially affable, but his questions and evasive demeanour rouse their anxiety level. Chung-hoon Chung’s camera menacingly closes in on them while Reed disappears supposedly to talk to his (non-existent) wife. Meanwhile, Paxton and Barnes plan their escape only (guess what?) to discover that they are locked in the room.

One might think that it was the cue for introducing standard tropes of myriad scary movies, but not so. The directors, Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (makers of A Quiet Place, etc.), return to a much more alarming theme: theological investigation. The film plays like a Socratic dialogue, three characters in search of the true religion. Reed appears to be the most erudite, having, he says, studied 10,000 religions. Displaying his knowledge with great panache, he uses audio-visual aids, such as the Hollies’ “The Air That I Breathe” and Monopoly boards to illustrate what he calls Iteration.

Grant plays this self-satisfied character with a smile more deadly than his frown. Sounding rather like Richard Dawkins on a bad day, he claims that all religions are borrowed narratives from the earliest known ones, which included such elements as crucifixion, resurrection, and 12 disciples. Viewers with any degree of theological awareness will recognise how shallow Reed’s statements are. The Mormons give as good as they get, particularly distinguishing between the magical and the miraculous dimensions in Reed’s thesis.

All the while indicating that words are unlikely to save them from what will transpire, their captor resumes another tack, that of revelation. How can sinful humanity accurately hear God’s voice? Don’t we, like Joseph Smith, who amended the Latter Day Saints’ practice of polygamy, alter divine commands to suit our own purposes? Do we just believe because others shaped our outlook? Reed seems ignorant of the well-researched stages of religious belief typified by the likes of James Fowler. There comes in adult life the momentous decision whether to move from affiliation to total ownership of faith and its subsequent, lifelong development.

My guess is that audiences will be either bewildered or enthralled by these mind games. Advance publicity describes Reed as diabolical. Some will become impatient for a traditional spookfest to follow. That does come, albeit with a character change defying credibility, plus a corny ending. Nevertheless, one is left asking who, if any of them, is the real heretic.