Was the movie “Heretic” with sister missionaries & Hugh Grant a good movie or bad movie? Josh Thompson & Rick Bennett share their impressions, and discuss missionary work. Check out our conversation…
The movie “Heretic” created a lot of buzz when it came out on November 8, especially in Mormon circles due to it’s portrayal of 2 sister missionaries trapped in Mr Reed’s house. Reed is initially jovial, but it soon turns into a game of cat-and-mouse in the house of a strange man (portrayed by Hugh Grant.) Do they have faith or is religion a bunch of silly superstitions?
The movie will be streamed on Tuesday for those who haven’t gone out to the theaters to see it. I sat down with Josh Thompson to discuss the movie. Josh is a member of a Mormon fundamentalist group called the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB.) You may remember Kody Brown and his “Sister Wives” who are also members of the group.
Josh thought Mr Reed’s questions weren’t anything new. These are the typical atheist arguments. He also thought the movie made the sister missionaries look stupid, especially when Hugh Grant’s character asked them about polygamy in the LDS Church. The sisters appeared very uncomfortable.
On the other hand, I thought the movie portrayed the sisters very well. I had a few quibbles. The opening scene was odd. I’m not saying it would never happen, but it was unusual. But the Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes nailed the Mormon dialogue and seemed quite authentic. I liked the movie, but I agreed with Josh that the religious arguments didn’t seem particularly profound. I would definitely recommend it.
I was quite surprised that the movie was rated R. There was no cursing, no nudity (not even a hint.) There was some gore, but nothing worse than you would see on “Stranger Things.” Have you seen movie? What are your reactions? Were you impressed by the religious dialogue and/or portrayals of LDS missionaries?
Wheat & Tares 
I saw the movie and thought it was interesting. I’ve also listened to a couple of podcasts discussing it, which helped me put it in a different light. In one podcast, the symbolism of the characters is portrayed with Mr. Reed representing the church and the missionaries, members of the church. This made a lot of sense to me. Mr. Reed started out so nice yet was not forthcoming to questions. He would only give what they wanted or needed to hear. Later, as he lured the missionaries further into his home, they chose their course of action with false promises, never force, for themselves. Finally, they have to work incredibly hard to escape when it becomes intolerable, and they are alone, and without hope.
This explanation made a lot more sense to me than the story of innocent missionaries being caught in an evil situation. I’ve seen how people join the church because everyone is so friendly then as they get deeper into the gospel because of greater promises, they may eventually realize they are in too deep and all they can see is the problems/lies they may have known about but never confronted. Then they are left with a terrible choice knowing they put themselves there but knowing it’s going to be hard to leave.
The missionaries represent different kinds of members, accepting or questioning. The arguments/questions used by Mr. Reed are the standard type questions that many may ask but aren’t really central to the deeper meaning of the symbolism, just part of telling a story with some authenticity.
I don’t think the movie is a straightforward telling of a story but is more of a parable with deeper meaning about God, the church, and our relationship to them.
The Catholics have had all the good Horror movies. I’m glad we finally got one! And it’s good!
Mr Reed clearly hates all religion, so I find the so called symbolism of him “representing the church” as a stretch beyond credulity. I can understand people who feel duped but that’s as far as the symbolism goes.
Remember the Monopoly comments? (The Bob Ross comments made me laugh.) Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism are all just newer versions of Judaism. How on earth can anyone get the impression that Mr Reed represents the Church? Clearly Mr Reed hates all religions. And I didn’t think the ending of the movie made Mr Reed or his arguments look good at all. I thought the missionaries looked heroic.
I saw the movie and liked it very much. In a way, it’s similar to The Book of Mormon (as in the Parker/Stone musical, which is briefly mentioned near the beginning of the film) in that it ultimately criticizes organized religion in general, but uses Mormonism as an entry point to those criticisms. The Mormon-specific criticisms offered by Hugh Grant’s character are surprisingly well-researched (like JS polygamy, mentioning Fanny Alger by name), though his broader theological arguments are well-worn. There are also themes of informed consent (or lack thereof), and false choice/illusion of choice, which have appeal and resonance beyond the obvious religious themes.
In particular, I appreciated that the young missionaries were portrayed as complex, multi-layered people, revealed gradually as the story progressed, rather than simple one-dimensional caricatures as LDS missionaries are often portrayed.
I saw the movie and liked it very much. In a way, it’s similar to The Book of Mormon (as in the Parker/Stone musical, which is briefly mentioned near the beginning of the film) in that it ultimately criticizes organized religion in general, but uses Mormonism as an entry point to those criticisms. The Mormon-specific criticisms offered by Hugh Grant’s character are surprisingly well-researched (like JS polygamy, mentioning Fanny Alger by name), though his broader theological arguments are well-worn. There are also themes of informed consent (or lack thereof), and false choice/illusion of choice, which have appeal and resonance beyond the obvious religious themes.
In particular, I appreciated that the young missionaries were portrayed as complex, multi-layered people, revealed gradually as the story progressed, rather than simple one-dimensional caricatures as LDS missionaries are often portrayed.
When I took an AP English class, everyone was having a discussion like Insterno and Rick B about, the symbolism means this, no it is clearly this other, no it can’t be that because…..I got a bit fed up. If people cannot figure out what the symbolism means, it clearly HAS no meaning. So, I kept quiet, but was stewing over the crappy “symbolism”. Then come time to write my paper and back it up with examples from the book. I took, um…the road less traveled with a stand opposing the instructor. I gave counter examples of what things could possibly mean, putting the book in a whole different category. No, this is not Romantic literature. It was written kind of between the Romantic period and whatever it is that I don’t currently remember. (Give me a break, it has been 55 years) I basically said that her “symbolism” was crap and backed it up with examples. Good teacher, she didn’t dock me but gave me top grade in the class for trying to prove that people read into symbolism whatever the h*ll they want. Bad teacher, she read my essay to the class as an example of what she wanted.
So, conclusion: symbolism means nothing but is an ink blot to read whatever the h*ll you want into it. Says more about you than the book or movie. So, putting my psychologist hat on, let me say that Insterno identifies with the heretic, while Rick identifies with the missionaries. Now, granted my sample size is much too small to really draw a conclusion, except that symbolism is crap and more of a Rorschach test than anything else. The beauty of symbolism is that it can mean several things, even contradictory things and hold deep meaning for an individual. And the weakness of symbolism is that it can mean anything anybody wants it to.
It does seem implausible that the screenwriters intended Mr. Reed to represent the Church. But the thing about art is that once you release it to the public, you lose control over its meaning. And sometimes the public infers meanings more useful than the those intended by the artists.
I saw the movie and am of mixed emotions about the film. I agree that the sister missionaries were presented in a nuanced way and even got in some pointed responses to the Reed character. I kind of agree with the view that McKay Coppins, a staff writer for the Atlantic magazine, in his review if the film and it was that Mr. Reed was an atheist who didn’t know when to shut up.
I saw the movie and am of mixed emotions about the film. I agree that the sister missionaries were presented in a nuanced way and even got in some pointed responses to the Reed character. I kind of agree with the view that McKay Coppins, a staff writer for the Atlantic magazine, in his review if the film and it was that Mr. Reed was an atheist who didn’t know when to shut up.
I thought it was awesome as an escape room horror/thriller. I thought the sisters were likable protagonists whose naïveté was an endearing smoke screen to their deeper layers and I thought Hugh Grant played a charismatic and chilling villain.
I think the discussion of the value and harm of religion was a little superficial but I felt like the film had important things to say about how much we default to the status quo/how much we let others oppress us in the name of not rocking the boat.
One thought I had during the film is that the sisters would have fared better if they had physically attacked Reed as soon as he started restricting their movements. Playing the game his way wasn’t the way out. His ideological grandstanding may or may not have been compelling, but he was clearly a psychopath physically trapping them and they waited too long to physically fight back.
Oh, “Heretic.” For a minute there I had it confused with “Conclave,” and was scratching my head at the comments.
The worst movie I ever had to endure through was, The Curios Case of Benjamin Buttons. This movie came in second. The message was lost in the stupidity of the movie.
Haven’t seen Heretic yet. Probably no one in my household would be comfortable watching it, bc: horror, suspense, criticism of Mormonism, etc.
But I plan to.
Can religion simultaneously play a spectrum of roles? Comfort. Motivation. Purpose. Meaning. Status. Control. Guilt. Opportunistic. Deceit. Manipulation.
What else?
Interpreted by each of us due to varied life experiences.
P.S. I enjoyed the discussion. Each of you freely voiced your own viewpoint. It was respectful.
I was streaming Heretic last night in my living room. At an intense part of the movie my doorbell rang. I paused and answered the door, and no joke, it was two Mormon missionaries. For a minute I thought, “What is happening? Am I being punked?” It was the first time in 5 years that the missionaries have come to my house unannounced. We had a good laugh about it and it will go down as a cherished memory for me.
I liked the movie. Like other commenters have suggested, I think that anyone who watches it will be able to interpret it to fit the narrative in their head. But I think it will cause those who watch it to reflect on why they think or believe what they believe, which I think is a good thing.
I saw the trailer. Why didn’t those sisters kill the guy as soon as the door locked and the guy wouldn’t unlock it?
Excellent movie and great review. Mormons in general are a pretty cool bunch. Spoke with them here and there over the years. Even visited their church for an afternoon barbeque. The lead minister actually reproofed us (the two missionaries that invited me) for not scolding a kid in our vicinity who was badly behaving. I thought it was rather noble of the minister; certainly not what you would expect at most other Christian churches.
Anyhow, what did you make of Sister Paxton’s passage through the series of rooms that contained esoteric books, paintings and even candle light? How did this scene add value to the overall story?