Heretic (Christian Movie Review)
Even with a captivating performance by Hugh Grant and an effectively spooky atmosphere, Heretic falls flat by approaching intriguing theological questions as a one-sided lecture rather than a stimulating dialogue.
About the Film
Don’t look now, but Hollywood might be in its Religion Era. With the influx of new faith-based movies and several buzz-worthy mainstream films (like Conclave), the entertainment industry has been exploring spirituality in interesting ways. A24’s latest horror film Heretic joins the ongoing religious dialogue, albeit with a skeptical bite. Despite a captivating performance by Hugh Grant and an effectively spooky atmosphere, Heretic falls flat by approaching intriguing theological questions as a one-sided lecture rather than a stimulating dialogue.
When two young Mormon missionaries—Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton—make a house visitation to the outwardly jovial Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), he confronts them with “awkward questions” that challenge their faith. While the movie’s third act ultimately reverts to more traditional horror territory (jump scares, bloody violence, etc.), most of Heretic plays out as a psychological or theological thriller. The uncomfortable backdrop of two young ladies alone in the house of an older (and clearly psychotic) man infuses the story with an omnipresent tension, but most of the “horror” stems from the women’s faith being called into question. According to Heretic, the most horrific threat is not “things that go bump in the night.” It is the lingering fear that your entire worldview is built on a lie.
At times, Heretic is an entertaining film. All three of the main cast members are great, with Hugh Grant the clear standout. The film offers the veteran actor to the delicious opportunity to act against expectations and play a deranged psychopath. He is soft-spoken, charming, and witty in a way that makes him even more unsettling. Heretic is also unpredictable, and its focus on psychological torment rather than body horror and gore is a refreshing change of pace.
A horror movie driven by theological dialogue is fresh and interesting. Unfortunately, the way Heretic explores that concept is less inspiring. For a Christian viewer, the film is not offensive as much as it is frustrating. It is perhaps akin to the faith-based God’s Not Dead series, which frequently depicts intelligent Christians steamrolling bumbling atheists with clever religious rhetoric and slam-dunk proofs of God’s existence (to the delight of the primarily Christian audience). In many ways, Heretic is God’s Not Dead for atheists (with a sprinkling of horror and Hugh Grant).
The film raises several probing questions about religion and faith: How much of what we believe is merely the byproduct of our upbringing and experiences? Why are there so many similarities in religious myths that seemingly pre-date Jesus? How can believers trust the veracity of divine revelation if it is filtered through imperfect human vessels? All these questions are valid. The problem is not that Heretic asks these questions but that it never appears genuinely interested in engaging in a good faith conversation about them. Hugh Grant is a compelling mouthpiece for religious skepticism, and he is given multiple extended monologues to make his case. But the two Mormon missionaries are largely silent. Instead, they stare blankly ahead as the camera zooms in on their bewildered faces.
Despite the outward guise of being an intellectual horror flick, Heretic is not as clever as it thinks it is. Rather, it is akin to the freshman philosophy major who skims a book by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens and assumes he’s equipped to debunk thousands of years of religious tradition. Heretic treats each of its religious objections as knock-out blows. A few of Mr. Reed’s arguments are indeed challenging (ex. the “problem of evil,” the impossibility of “certainty,” etc.). But most are outdated party tricks that have been discredited by serious scholars to the point that even atheist philosophers rarely utilize them anymore (ex. the “iterations” argument). Like The Da Vinci Code (2006), it’s the sort of attack on religion that is only persuasive to someone who has never exerted much energy studying religion.
As a Christian, I obviously would have appreciated if the pro-religion perspective had been given a more knowledgeable, articulate voice. The same is true for my capacity as a movie goer. The film’s sense of horror and dread largely depends on the audience’s apprehension that the religious objections are unanswerable. After one extended argument against religion, Mr. Reed concludes, “It’s all terrifying, isn’t it?” But it’s not, as even one of the missionaries finally remarks. It’s a flimsy argument, not a terrifying predicament. The film’s failure to put forth many serious objections—or to explore the missionaries’ internal conflict with any depth—diminishes the intended effect (which is perhaps why the movie reverts from a psychological thriller to a more traditional horror film by the end). To be fair, unlike the God’s Not Dead movies, the character voicing the central worldview is the villain, a clearly unhinged individual. Also, despite struggling to articulate a verbal response, both missionaries remain surprisingly resilient in their faith. I think the filmmakers were aiming at a provocative, balanced theological discussion rather than cheap atheist propaganda. I just don’t think they were successful.
Overall, Heretic is a disappointing film that squanders its promising concept. Some atheists will appreciate its forceful takedown of religion, and some Christians may be outraged by its one-sided perspective. But perhaps it is those in the middle—viewers who hoped to see an engaging theological conversation—that will leave the theater most unsatisfied. If nothing else, perhaps this film can open our eyes to how unbelievers likely feel when watching proselytizing faith-based films. I really wanted to like Heretic, but I ultimately found it to be an unstimulating theological debate in the vehicle of a mildly enjoyable horror movie. As a Christian, I appreciate that Hollywood has been increasingly willing to explore spiritual and religious topics. I just wish Heretic had more of value to add to the conversation.
For Consideration
Language: There are 2-3 uses of “d—m.” There are also several substitute swears (“effing,” “frigging,” etc.).
Violence: A character’s neck is slit and the character bleeds out on the ground. Characters are assaulted in various ways: punctured in the neck with a sharp object, hit in the face with a wooden plank with protruding nails, and stabbed in the stomach. A character cuts open someone’s arm to remove an implant and is shown shoving his fingers into the bloody wound (inadvertently pulling out a vein instead).
Sexuality: There is an extended conversation about condoms and a description of a pornographic video. A religious missionary has a contraceptive implant, indicating that she is sexually active. A woman has her pants pulled down as a prank. A man mentions that God “watches people as they masturbate” and claims that God “hates gay people for being the way he made them.”
Engage The Film
The One True Religion
“What is the one true religion?” After studying many religions, Mr. Reed boldly claims to have discovered the answer: “Control.” Despite their theological differences, Mr. Reed believes what all religions have in common is a desire and the infrastructure to gain power over people: “Religion is just a system of control.”
In the film’s opening scene, the two missionaries have a conversation about manipulative marketing, with one woman asking, “What else do we believe just because of marketing?” The implication is that religion is simply a matter of marketing, a business transaction in which religious institutions offer purpose and comfort in exchange for power and control over its adherents. Mr. Reed’s entire game of psychological torment is designed to demonstrate that even our private thoughts and desires are determined by the will of those in power.
How much weight audiences should give to the philosophizing of a madman is up for debate. But even considering the missionaries’ more positive outlook, the question is never whether religion is true, only whether it is beneficial. One of the ladies admits, “Praying doesn’t work.” She cites an experiment that allegedly proved that the lives of praying individuals were no different than of non-praying people. Despite “everyone knowing” that prayer “doesn’t work,” she still sees it as a valuable practice. Interestingly, even Mr. Reed, despite his atheist worldview, ultimately asks for prayer when he is in distress (although it is unclear if he is sincere).
Throughout the film, one of the women sees a butterfly, and it becomes symbolic of her faith. In the story’s closing moments, it is suggested that the butterfly is not (and perhaps never was) physically there. Is the butterfly evidence of the real presence of God or a metaphor for how religion provides comfort, even if it is not objectively true?
In Scripture, Paul wrote, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Religion is not an emotional crutch or a machine of control. If Jesus was not truly the Son of God, then no peace or purpose can be found in Christianity. Thankfully, despite Mr. Reed’s attempts to prove otherwise, Christians can take comfort in the assurance that our faith is built on a firm foundation of truth.
