Is it wrong that it kind of looks like Knock Knock a bit at the beginning?

Looks like it could be good.

I thought the same thing when they were at his front door.

Is it just me or does it look like the basement is the same one from Black Phone?

Reviews from TIFF: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/heretic_2024

Out this week. RT score currently at 95%.

Seeing it Sunday in Dolby Cinema.

Saw the trailer before Venom . . . This looks good!

Has Hugh Grant just become this one-trick actor now though? Don't get me wrong, I'm still loving it, but it will wear thin soon.

This was fantastic!! Hugh Grant has never been better. The Sophie and Chloe were very good. The script!! Perfect. Loved this so much.

Thought this was great. Good psychological horror and Hugh Grant was really good as the lead. The two main actresses were also very good.

Saw this over the weekend.

Directors/Writers Scott Beck & Bryan Woods have always been hit or miss, with Haunt (2019) being a fairly enjoyable mindless romp, while Nightlight (2015) and 65 (2023) leaving much on the table.

Hugh Grant's performance was wonderful, as were Chloe East & Sophie Thatcher's but I didn't care for much in the second-half of this 111-minute film, where it starts spinning its wheels violently.

That first hour though?

When I saw the trailer, I thought, "That song sounds a lot like Radiohead's 'Creep'," so I laughed my ass off when that similarity wound up becoming an important part of the movie.

I was riveted for the first hour and change. Thirty minutes in, I had to take a leak, and was waiting for a lull so I could hit the bathroom, but the movie was so consistently engrossing I didn't want to get up.

If Hugh Grant wasn't available, I would liked to have seen John Cleese play this character. He would have been perfect to deliver those lectures, and like Hugh Grant does, I think he could project a level of sinister that would overpower the humor.

Same for me. I thought the set up and Hugh were great but ended up not liking the movie.

I think this movie is fascinating from beginning to end. A deep theological discussion disguised as a horror film, and the spiral downward that happens after that first half is totally in tune with what it's going for. There's a great revelation that happens in the end, in that house's deepest basement, and then you're left to ponder the film's overall message. There's tons to talk about as the credits roll. One of my favorites of the year, and just another addition to what is a FANTASTIC year in horror.

Wow . . . so that is what looks like to see a writer completely give up on their own project. My students don't even give up that quickly.

As an atheist who enjoys comparative religion as a study, this was fascinating. Not sure how much was true . . . but it was good stuff! Others have already said this, but this is amazing through the first two acts. The third act started to falter, and was finally punctuated by . . . they didn't pay me enough to write an ending? That was worse than a Stephen King wrap up.

I did sit through the credits just to listen to the song, and three things caught my eye in the credits:

• Topher Grace?! I had no idea. Honestly, when that scene first started, I was trying to figure out if it was a flashback with a de-aged Hugh Grant.
• There is a credit stating that no AI generated content is used in the movie.
• The song over the end credits is performed by Sophie Thatcher.

Just curious, was your screening extremely dark and hard to see in many scenes? Or was this another "quality" AMC presentation for me? I'm not talking about the shots when it was suppose to be darkness all around, but ones where darkness is lurking and it seems as if we are supposed to be seeing or noticing some detail (e.g., somebody in the background). I wasn't sure who/what they initially saw when going back into the house until they showed the bust from the opposite angle.

Murky, and underlit images are the bane of my movie-going existence these days. Usually, I can tell whether it is bad projection or the way the film was shot by how the trailers before the movie look.

I did not find Heretic's photography to be extremely dark. Even in the basement scenes I was seeing a good level of detail. I don't remember anything in the movie being "hard to see". In the scene you mention, yes, you weren't supposed to be able to see exactly what was standing at the back of the house, just that it was the shape of a person (clearly the filmmakers wanted the audience to be thinking, Is that Reeder? Is that someone else?")

Thank you, Crocker!

I suspected it was bad projection. The trailers seemed to have a similar look, but considering AMC didn’t even turn the lights down, let alone off during the trailers, it was hard to tell.

Now that I have had a day to let this sit with me, it is already presciently creepy how this will be viewed as a political allegory in a few years.

A fantastic example of a movie that cannot possibly live up to its set-up. Incredible performances all around, but...




This was a contender for a top three of the year in my book until the last 10-15 minutes.

There’s a lot of themes that the film loops back on in the end that make me see they tried to push being clever just too far.

I honestly would have preferred the two turning against each other and the twist reveal is his wife was playing the prophet. Let the way out through the tunnel literally be a way out.

This was a big letdown. Hugh Grant was great, but I was most bored.

On Max starting March 7.

Cool

I just watched this on MAX. I agree that the first 2/3 was really great, but the conclusion was disappointing. Still worth the watch though. The way the suspense and dread builds in the first half was really well done.

Flick was a major letdown, Grant was excellent, but the entire thing was just uninteresting and there was no tension at all.

Saw it over the weekend too, and I'll echo everyone else's sentiments that the movie petered out in the last 15 or so. A good re-write of this one and it'd be a classic.