On the surface, this is a studio-backed horror film with an A-list lead, but beneath the budget and prestige sits a blueprint every indie filmmaker should be studying. There’s a confidence in how small the film chooses to be. A story built on tension, dialogue, and a handful of characters locked in a psychological and ideological collision. The location, though richly designed, is fundamentally simple. The cast is tight. And the movie thrives on elements that don’t require millions of dollars, just precision and craft.
Hugh Grant delivers one of his most unsettling performances, crafting a character whose charm weaponizes itself into something quietly monstrous. His scenes feel like a masterclass in how an actor can shift the atmosphere of a room without moving more than a few inches. His energy becomes the film’s gravitational center, pulling us into a slow-boil dread that feels polite as it evolves into terrifying.
Hugh Grant in ‘Heretic.’ COURTESY OF A24
Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East pair perfectly against Grant’s Mr. Reed. They offer just the right balance of vulnerability and resistance, enough realism to show how easily one can fall into a predator’s trap, and enough backbone to make the struggle feel grounded and human.
Hugh Grant with Sophie Thatcher, center, and Chloe East in the movie “Heretic.”(Kimberley French / A24)
The writing is equally sharp. Heretic uses religion not as a gimmick, but as a way to show how belief, when twisted by fear or ego, can escalate into extremism. What I found most compelling is how the film motivates both protagonist and antagonist with deeply human impulses. No one here acts out of cartoonish evil; they act out of conviction, confusion, and desperation. That’s real horror. And it’s the kind of horror indie filmmakers can harness without needing a massive production footprint.
For much of the runtime, the film’s power comes from its simplicity: three characters, one location, and one terrifying idea. This is where the movie shines brightest. It’s intimate. It’s grounded. It forces the audience to sit with discomfort rather than distracting them from it.
But for me, and this is truly my only critique, the film doesn’t trust its own minimalism long enough. Spoiler warning
Late in the game, Heretic tries to expand its world with additional victims, underground passages, and a layer of visual creepiness that shifts the tone away from the tense, reality-based terror we started with. None of it is poorly executed; in fact, much of it is impressive. But it feels like a different movie trying to push its way in.
Here’s the kind of choice that I think actually teaches us something: Horror doesn’t need to grow bigger to grow scarier. It just needs to grow deeper.
The film already had everything it needed: belief, danger, psychological warfare, and three phenomenal performances colliding in a confined space. When Heretic stays grounded, it’s electric. When it widens its scope, some of that electricity disperses.
Still, the overall craft is undeniable. Scott Beck and Bryan Woods are an exceptional team, and this film is a clear example that every aspiring writer and director should study closely. The acting is exquisite. The writing is brilliant and direction handled with a steady, confident hand.
Heretic is a beautifully executed example of how to make the walls close in without ever leaving the room and as a filmmaker, this movie showed me that we don’t need more money, more rooms, more characters, or more mythology to create something special and that is a lesson worth studying.
