Heretic (2024)

Jan 23

Bible school for the disbelievers.

Presentation:

If you’ve seen the trailer for this film, it’s visually pretty much all you should expect. There are a few neat camera moves and effects but visually it spans only a few locations only adding visual intrigue through anamorphic shot on digital. Lighting is contemporary and does look nice but isn’t particularly revolutionary especially when the majority of the film takes place in a moody household and dark basement. It’s more of a thriller than a horror as there isn’t really a single scare. It does build tension in an entertaining way, but it is really about the story and twist that will make the film of any value. For the 2 hour film, 60% of the film is spent on development, which isn’t unsettling at all but is fun. Unfortunately most of the film should feel like a lecture on religion, which I personally found intriguing despite being unbelievably didactic. The title of the film already suggests who the target audience should be, though be warned if you somehow didn’t think this would have political/religious commentary. Hugh Grant is okay, the two girls are just so-so. I think it’s really the plot that is the primary driving force highly reminiscent of the peak Shyamalan age of suspense films. Once you know the reveal, it’s pretty disappointing thereafter.

Story:

The implied notion of female missionaries willing to die for this man is so silly. The simulation theory is mostly a red herring and how the God-like control aspects plays out is so stupid in the end. In what universe would two girls even play this game knowing it's a trap? How the hell do the writers expect any audience to believe that this kind of cult conversion would work and even convince people with its ridiculous plot? As for the lengths this Mr. Reed goes to simply prove a point the directors want to make, it's so unfathomably simplistic that it's hard to take what is actually a decent point seriously.

Analysis:

The film is anti-religion, providing ammunition for people that feel persecuted for their sexual orientation. Scott Beck and Bryan Woods are both the directors and writers of the film, attempting to expose the hypocrisy of religion. Using many examples of iterations in art, music and board games, the film provides a decent argument for how derivative content is claiming religion is no different. There is some nuance with Sister Barnes providing some devil's advocate, but at the end of the day the side you agree with will largely be based on pre-existing notions. The writers argue that because religion is potentially derivative, it illustrates the manipulative nature and hence impossibility of its credibility. It must then be explained that it has all been fabricated as a means of control, which is the primary objective of all religion. You should completely abandon any hope that there will be any realistic explanation for why the prophets willingly accept being slaves, only suggested that they fell for the “magic trick” and became devout followers of this new God. Why they stay there and be tortured to die, let’s move on from that plot hole. The film suggests even more cynicism that this control is perverse at its core, as Mr. Reed's comments of polygamy revealing his motive for turning all these women into sex slaves. He also only appears to imprison women as opposed to men, indicated by him completely passing up the male elder when he visits. It’s highly suggested from his magic underwear comment that he intended on raping Sister Paxton, possibly referencing religious cultish leaders. As someone anagnostic, I actually think some of the ideas in the film have merit. Control does seem to be a motive in mankind, subjugating men and women to extreme levels of blind allegiance out of fear. But it’s presented so flimsily that it’ll likely leave you disappointed with its half done homework. The best thing about the film is the thought experiment midway through. There’s a lot of goodness that could be expressed through Barnes not believing in the prophet juxtaposed with her faith, but the direction seemed to abandon this to suit the director’s primary narrative. There are a few pieces that reveal their main intent including a comment that religion is a paradoxical curse to the sexual minority and the end where the butterfly is shown to be a hallucination. This strongly suggests that although there is some ambiguity, it is ultimately an anti-religion perspective whose sole purpose is to convince you that religion is fabricated.

Conclusion:

This is a film that has the clear intention of spreading a certain religious message. I don’t think it will change minds of religious people, whom don’t navigate their life based on logic but rather belief. But it could sway people in the middle with its politically charged narrative. It’s entertaining enough for a compelling first watch for younger audiences, but you will really have to immerse yourself in order to forgive some of the egregious loop holes you’d expect from typically shallow writing oblivious to any consistency aside from its indoctrination. It feels weird when over half a film is spent giving a sermon on why religious aspects are flawed, as if these arguments haven’t been around for centuries. However, I still found it largely entertaining especially with its visual direction and presentation.

more rotten chilis