This horror movie from last year is about two Mormon missionaries, Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton. When they knock at the door of the reclusive and mysterious Mr. Reed, and accept his invitation to come inside for his wife's blueberry pie, they quickly come to regret their decision when they become trapped in the house. An uncomfortable conversation about religion soon gives way to an ominous test of faith... and then far worse.
I think it's important to classify Heretic as a horror movie and not a suspense movie or thriller. Otherwise, the audience may find itself trapped just like its Mormon characters, having gone too far too escape a situation they didn't set out to find. Heretic is ultimately a gory movie in which its protagonists are menaced by a violent man -- and you really ought to be prepared for that going in.
But I don't think the movie presents that way at all in its summary, nor does it seem to be unfolding that way for the first 30 to 45 minutes. At first the movie's villain, Mr. Reed, comes off as an intellectual "Jigsaw killer," a lightning-fast mind who has thought of everything and has the created the perfect cerebral trap from which his victims can't escape. And for my money, this is when the movie is at its best.
Before the blood starts flying, Heretic actually makes excellent points about religion -- and even allows one of its missionary protagonists to make excellent counterpoints. There's just the right amount of moral debate on display, and it's perfectly woven into an unsettling and tense situation where you feel like anything could happen next. Strangely, Mr. Reed seems to me to be at his most menacing before he actually does anything. His bark is so deliciously malign than his bite seems less interesting to me. Plus, Heretic's plot twists -- of which there are several -- grow increasingly far-fetched. If you like a movie willing to take big swings, you'll probably be with Heretic all the way. But I was missing the early cat-and-mouse tension long before the end credits rolled.
It's likely the reason I found Heretic's first half-or-so so compelling is because of the casting of Mr. Reed. Hugh Grant delivers an absolutely amazing performance. I'm hard-pressed to think of a more compelling "mannered villain" since Anthony Hopkins' indelible take on Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. He puts the perfect spin on Reed -- a mix of professorial elitism and bottled menace. You wouldn't need to know you were watching a horror movie, wouldn't need the dramatic music heightening the danger, to feel that this character was a looming threat. You just feel like he's a predator playing with his food.
Heretic is nearly a "three-hander" play, and so it's worth praising the other two performers in the mix. Sophie Thatcher is good as Sister Barnes, the more strong-willed of the missionaries whose answer to this terrible situation is "fight." Chloe East is also good as Sister Paxton, her timid partner whose initial answer is "flight." In any case, Hugh Grant's already-great performance is made better still by having two good scene partners to work with.
Ultimately, Heretic lost me. I'd only give it a C, and normally I wouldn't have even bothered to blog about it. But it starts so good, and Hugh Grant's villainous performance was so exciting to me, that I felt compelled to at least partially praise it. Perhaps fans of the right horror subgenre -- a wilder, weirder one -- will like it. Perhaps going into it with more properly calibrated expectations would help too. In short... perhaps this is for you?
No comments:
Post a Comment