New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 426894" data-attributes="member: 23">Heretic (2024) <img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2Fw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6606aca2-fd14-4305-a9ae-9c6b6c0e0582_700x1034.heic&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=95c4474ce1e3c4e008f069e73d5acd3bd7df216134e331e5d92f6fb0061f1601" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> I was pleased to watch this with little knowledge of the film, other than the poster of Hugh Grant looking a little sinister, and a brief synopsis on Prime about two missionaries knocking on the door of a host who plays cat and mouse with them (and the latter was, frankly, too much information. Can't we just hint rather than giving away anything beyond the first act?). Something about the description gave suggestions of The Perfect Host with David Hyde Pierce, and The Owners with Sylvester McCoy and Rita Tushingham, both of which are kind of home invasion films in reverse. There are indeed similarities, with the difference here being that the people who enter the house with dark secrets are there trying to do good, even if they still have their agenda. They might be evangelists, but they're also somewhat invited guests at this home, since they have a list of people who have expressed interest in their faith, rather than knocking on random doors asking people if they've thought about their afterlife today. It has to be said that I came close to aborting my viewing during the lengthy opening scene with the two girls on the bench. It was one of those "trying too hard" moments where the more it tried to clobber the audience round the head with its "naturalistic" dialogue, the more contrived it felt (the "detail" where the girl mispronounced pornography several times was particularly forced, badly executed and unfunny). I'm very glad I persevered, though, because these faltering steps were far from representative of the film as a whole, and it really came to life the moment Hugh Grant opened the door. And, thanks to some deft writing and direction, the two female actresses turned out to be quite watchable as well, bouncing wonderfully off his intensity. Hugh Grant greatly went up in my estimation when I watched Florence Foster Jenkins a couple of years ago, I felt he had potential to give a great performance here and really he did deliver. He swings effortlessly between being disarmingly charming and... something else entirely. The uncomfortably inappropriate turns the conversation quickly took really made me feel that sense of being on guard and questioning if it was just a bumbling series of mistakes or something much darker. All of which made good use of his image as the hapless, "nice-but-dim" romantic lead. He has some terrifically memorable monologues and diatribes throughout, most of them regarding the way faith is sold and bought as he turns the tables on the messengers who become his captive audience. Like this one where he draws parallels between certain faiths, board games and the plagiarism thread that ran from The Hollies to Lana Del Ray via Radiohead. [MEDIA=youtube]r5fW-Qjh_YY[/MEDIA] If it has a failing, it's some of the situations being a little too extreme. In particular the discoveries made in the latter part of the film relating to other occupants stretched credulity and lost some of the reality that had, up to that point, made it so very unsettling. Even so, this one was definitely worth a peek, and I'd probably watch it again.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played JR Ewing?