Two Women Standing Outside of an Eerie House | Public Square Magazine | Heretic Film | What is Heretic About?

Heretic Movie: All Your Questions Answered

What is the movie Heretic all about? This article answers key questions about the plot, themes, and religious critique.

What is Heretic?

Heretic is a horror film distributed by A24. It arrives in theaters this fall. It stars Hugh Grant, as well as relative newcomers Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East.

What is Heretic About?

Heretic is about two sister missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes. Hugh Grant plays Mr. Reed, who requests a visit from the missionaries. Reed kidnaps the sister missionaries.

Who is involved in creating Heretic?

The film was written, directed, and produced by childhood friends Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. They are known for writing the script for the popular film series A Quiet Place. This is the largest production Beck and Woods have directed themselves. In a Q&A at the film’s world premiere, they described themselves as lapsed evangelicals.

Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East, both former Latter-day Saints, portray the sister missionaries. Hugh Grant describes himself as not a believer.

Heretic hasn’t come out yet. How do you have details about it?

While the film has not been released nationwide, it has had its premiere. The Q&A below is spoiler-heavy based on previous screenings of the film. While most Latter-day Saints will not want to watch the film, we felt that it was important to discuss the portrayal of sister missionaries in an open and honest way so members can participate in and be aware of the dialogue surrounding the film. 

How does the film begin?

The film opens with the two sister missionaries sitting on a bus bench with a condom advertisement. They discuss condom sizes and which sizes Sister Barnes’ ex-brother-in-law wears, which leads Sister Paxton to describe watching pornography. She describes watching a video where the performers were interrupted by the person in the next room. One performer looked aghast “like her spirit left her.” Paxton says that this helped her testimony.

We learn that the senior companion, Sister Barnes, has taught many people who have been baptized, while Sister Paxton hasn’t taught anyone who was then baptized. Sister Barnes commits that they are going to get Paxton a baptism.

We are then shown a montage of them doing unsuccessful street contacting. 

They then approach a group of teenage girls because Paxton says she has “a good feeling about them.” Those girls then ask Paxton about her “magic underwear” and then pull her skirt down, revealing her temple garments before she can answer. Paxton is very embarrassed.

How do the missionaries meet Mr. Reed?

The missionaries had received a referral for Mr. Reed, but someone in their ward warned them not to go. They go anyway because Barnes wants to get Paxton a convert. Mr. Reed is very friendly and invites the missionaries in. 

They inform him that they cannot come in if there is not another woman present. Reed says his wife is in the kitchen cooking a blueberry pie. 

The missionaries walk in and start a conversation. Reed says he thinks people should have some belief and the conversation begins on a friendly basis. Sister Barnes shares a story of her father’s illness, and Mr. Reed uses this as a reason to question her faith. Barnes says when she dies she wants to come back as a butterfly. He then begins to lecture them about what he sees as the weaknesses of their religion.

When his wife does not appear within a few minutes, the missionaries press that she needs to come out or they need to leave. Mr. Reed goes into the kitchen to get her, and the sister missionaries realize that the blueberry pie they smell is actually from a candle. 

While Mr. Reed says he’s getting his wife, he’s actually stealing the missionaries’ bikes from the front so no one will know they’re there. 

They decide to leave, but the door is locked. The windows are too small to escape from, and their cell phone doesn’t have reception.

How does Reed begin to mistreat the missionaries?

The missionaries ask him to let them go, but he tells them that his locks are automatic and cannot be unlocked until the morning. 

Mr. Reed is obsessed with the idea of control, so at this point, he never physically hurts the missionaries but rather tells them they can make their own decisions. He tells them they must go into the back room if they want to get their coats and that the house exit is out the back. When they get their coats, they realize that the key to their bike lock has changed pockets.

Reed continues to insist they can leave at any time they’d like through two doors from that backroom.

Worried about being harmed, Barnes convinces Paxton to stay and listen to a lecture Mr. Reed wants to give them about religion. 

What is Reed’s Theory of Religion?

Reed begins to tell the missionaries that religion is about iterations. He claims that the story of Jesus Christ is merely a reworked myth of previous cultures like the Persian Mithras or the Egyptian Ra.

He compares Judaism to “The Landlord’s Game ” and Christianity to “Monopoly,” which is substantially similar but better marketed. He compares Islam to “Monopoly: Ultimate Banking Edition” and the Church of Jesus Christ to “Monopoly: Bob Ross Edition.”

He also plays the songs “The Air I Breathe” and “Creep” by Radiohead, which share similar melodies and chord progressions.

While in this room, Sister Barnes sees a letter opener which she gives to Paxton to put in her pocket. Barnes tells Paxton that if she says the phrase “magic underwear,” that means to stab Mr. Reed with the letter opener.

Two People Sitting in a Dark Basement with Stairs | Public Square Magazine | What is the Heretic Movie About? | Thoughts on the Heretic Film
Two sister missionaries kidnapped and trapped in the basement of a psychotic killer.

Is there any way for the missionaries to get out?

Mr. Reed insists throughout that the missionaries are not locked in the house but that there is an exit through the back, and they just need to go that way. 

There are two doors out the back, and when he finishes his lecture, he tells them to leave either through a door representing belief or disbelief. Sister Barnes convinces Paxton that they should go through the belief door, and they proceed even though it clearly leads to a basement. Reed immediately locks the door behind them. 

When they get into the basement Barnes notices a loose floorboard with nails in it. Soon, they see a woman walking across the room with a blueberry pie. They hear Reed through a speaker. He lectures them about miracles and says that he brought them here to witness a miracle. The woman is going to eat the pie, which has been poisoned, and she will then come back to life. Reed calls her “the prophet.” She is elderly and in rags. Her eyes have thick cataracts, and she doesn’t speak. She scoops the pie with her hand, eats it, begins to spasm, and then dies in front of the missionaries. Reed forces them to check for a pulse, which she does not have.

Does anyone come to check on Sisters Barnes and Paxton?

Yes, there are occasional scenes with Elder Kennedy. He is a single, middle-aged man played by Topher Grace. He wears a missionary tag, and we see him cleaning the local chapel. When he notices that the missionaries aren’t back at the chapel by the usual time, he goes out into the snowstorm to find them. 

He stops by several homes, including Mr. Reed’s. Reed insists that the missionaries have never come, and Elder Kennedy leaves before returning for a brief second to pass along a pamphlet to Mr. Reed.

While Mr. Reed is at the door, the missionaries are screaming and getting a set of matches. They use them to try to create smoke that Elder Kennedy might see, but it doesn’t work.

Has Mr. Reed planned this encounter?

Yes. We see Reed in a study where he has created a model of his house and has planned in detail how he expected the sister missionaries to act throughout his plan. The entire architecture of his house, including metal roofs to block cell phone signals, has been built with this abduction in mind.

What happens to the woman who ate the pie?

When Sister Barnes and Paxton go back down, Paxton notes that it appears like the woman has moved. Eventually, she sits up and, in bursts of words, describes a vision of a train in the clouds, ending with the words, “It’s Not Real.”

Mr. Reed then comes into the basement. He lectures the missionaries, insisting they call what happened a miracle. Barnes argues with him, saying that it’s an illusion. She calls it “magic—” and in suspense, we see Paxton is ready to stab Reed if Barnes says “underwear,” but instead, Reed stabs Barnes, killing her. 

He then insists that when the prophet said, “It is not real,” she meant that life is actually a simulation. To illustrate this, Reed recounts a Daoist thought experiment where a man had a dream of being a butterfly but wondered if he was really a butterfly having a dream of being a man. Reed says Barnes was not a real person but part of the simulation. He then cuts open her upper arm and pulls out what is clearly subcutaneous birth control, claiming it is actually evidence of the simulation. 

Paxton then says it’s birth control and (inaccurately) says Barnes would have faced church discipline if anyone knew she had it. 

How does the movie end?

Reed then tries to convince Sister Paxton of the miracle, but Paxton says that what happened is that the old woman actually died, and a second woman was brought into the room to replace her. Paxton tells Reed that she doesn’t believe his trick went according to plan. She believes that when the second woman said, “It’s not real,” it was a warning to the missionaries.

Reed is skeptical, saying if that is true, there must be a door underneath the basement. 

Paxton immediately finds the door and discovers the dead body of the woman she saw before and cages filled with women dressed exactly the same as the one who had died eating the poison pie.

Paxton then says Mr. Reed actually believes “the one true church is control” and that he had been controlling them the entire time. Reed then lectures Paxton about how much she is controlled, cutting off a finger of one of the women to demonstrate. He then uses the example that Paxton has even been told she has to wear “magic underwear.” At this, Paxton stabs Reed with the letter opener and runs back up into the cellar, but she’s still locked in. 

Reed follows and then stabs Paxton. She then admits that she doesn’t believe that prayer works, but she thinks it’s nice anyway. 

Sister Barnes, who had been presumed dead, stands up and impales Reed with the loose floorboard, and he dies. Barnes immediately collapses again. Paxton then goes back into the sub-basement, finds the bicycle lock, which she unlocks, and then goes outside. She briefly hallucinates a butterfly landing on her finger before passing out in the snow, presumably dead.  

Is the movie good?

It is suspenseful. The set design is above average. There are some moments of great cinematography and other moments where it’s poor. The dialogue is not written very well. Hugh Grant is a strong actor, but both Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East, who play the sister missionaries, feel like amateurs who can’t communicate with much nuance or carry the weight of the narrative. 

Because of its heavy emphasis on lecturing about atheism, the plot often feels weighed down and dull. In that way, it’s kind of like overly preachy religious cinema like “Saturday’s Warrior,” but for atheists.

In terms of its artistic merit, it’s average, certainly not great or even good. It also doesn’t have the makings of a cult horror movie, nor is it good enough to be an award contender. It’s unlikely to be remembered in a year by anyone except academics who study Latter-day Saint depictions in movies or horror movie buffs.

Who is the Heretic?

A heretic is someone who believes the wrong thing. The title is likely intended to make its audience wonder if the missionaries are heretics because Reed “proves them wrong” or whether he, as the non-believer predator, is the heretic.

Does Heretic have an agenda?

The creators say they want the movie to spark conversations about religion. Mr. Reed is portrayed far and away as the most intelligent character in the movie. Paxton’s vision of the butterfly at the end is portrayed as a hallucination. Barnes briefly coming back to life to kill Mr. Reed could be seen as a miracle.

In the Q&A, the directors said that they were influenced by the “new atheist” movement’s writers, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

Could this result in missionaries getting hurt?

A copycat attempt is one of the worst possible outcomes here. The creators don’t seem to be trying to create them, though. It is shown that Reed has spent years planning this, including building the very architecture of the home to enable it. It also requires strong manipulation from Reed to work around the missionaries’ safety standards. 

What criticisms could Latter-day Saints face as a result of the film?

While Mr. Reed mocks Latter-day Saints generally throughout the film, there are only three cogent criticisms that he makes:

1. Joseph Smith instituted polygamy for his own sexual satisfaction. This is an old criticism, and recent research into the timeline of Smith’s polygamous marriages is making this claim feel more out of touch with reality. 

2. The story of Jesus Christ is a reworked myth from other ancient cultures. Interestingly, the screenwriters have Reed, who otherwise seems well-read, repeat easily debunked claims about mythological Gods to make this point. 

3. Religion is all about control. This is Reed’s main conclusion in the film, so it may be picked up on by others as well. 

How does Heretic make Latter-day Saints and the Church of Jesus Christ look?

Different viewers will have different takeaways, but a group of those who have seen the film reported having, on average, more positive feelings about missionaries but worse feelings about the Church of Jesus Christ as a result of the movie.

Is Heretic Insulting to Latter-day Saints?

Those who feel insulted will likely notice that the film spends a lot of time implying that all faith is unintelligent. In the end, Sister Paxton reveals the reality of her lack of faith. The missionaries are sexualized in ways most missionaries would be uncomfortable with. The film also seems to revel in embarrassing the sister missionaries, such as pulling down their pants, comparing their religion to Bob Ross Monopoly, and repeating “magic underwear” ad nauseam.

One person who watched the film said, “Whoever wrote that was really angry that a sister missionary said no when he tried to hit on her.”

Those who feel the film respects Latter-day Saints will likely focus on the fact that the missionaries are the protagonists and that, in the end, Sister Paxton outwits Mr. Reed. 

In our assessment, however, the creators of the film wanted audiences to take the message that religion is obviously wrong but might make you a better person anyway. Different viewers will certainly make their own interpretations.

About the author

Public Square Staff

Our core team, including our Editor in Chief, Editor at Large, Managing Editor, Associate Editor, and Social Media Director.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven

In an age that claims to value “own voices” media, it is sad that Under the Banner of Heaven is probably going to be the biggest story that the public sees about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this year or this decade. While the tale it tells is based on an actual occurrence and about some actual problems within the broader movement of people hearkening back to Joseph Smith, one thing that can’t be said for either the book or the show was that they were written by a member of our community. The producer may have “grown up” as a Latter-day Saint, but he left the faith before he was an adult. If you’ve never had the experience of holding a calling, making temple covenants, or negotiating the relationships that make up a ward (Latter-day Saint congregation), are you really the best person to interpret our community? So I’m stepping in to offer my perspective. I am not a historian or theologian. So, though I try to be informed about the difficult parts of our religion’s past, I can only give you the perspective of what an average member would know or believe about these situations. I undoubtedly will get some of the nuances wrong. This will not be the best place if you’re looking for information about the historical accuracy of the show. (Consider checking FAIR’s guide or Book of Mormon Central.) However, I am an active participant in the larger Latter-day Saint literary community. I’ve written essays about my own life as a woman in the Church and fictional stories about others. I studied Latter-day Saint literature in college and continue reading contemporary Latter-day Saint literature. I am on the board of the Association for Mormon Letters, an organization that promotes literature written by, for, or about those who tie back to the prophet Joseph (including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but not exclusive to our denomination). So you might say I have some experience with portrayals of the Latter-day Saints and separate fundamentalist communities. The purpose of this series of recaps is two-fold. First, I want to summarize the series for ordinary Latter-day Saints who don’t intend to watch it so they won’t be surprised around the metaphorical watercooler this week. Second, I will catalog the series as it compares to Latter-day Saint literature more broadly. As a writer, reader, and advocate of Latter-day Saint literature, this is my home turf. I am interested to see where the show gets things right and wrong. Granted, my experience isn’t the experience of every member; like any community, Latter-day Saints are not a monolith. But I will compare the show to my personal knowledge of our community and talk about what sticks out. Without further ado, here are my impressions of the first two episodes of Under the Banner of Heaven. Episode 1, “When God Was Love”  Summary—The episode opens with Detective Pyre being called away from his family’s Pioneer Day celebrations to visit a crime scene. At an ordinary suburban house, he finds a scene of chaos with a mother (Brenda Lafferty) and her 15-month-old daughter (Erica) murdered in a gruesome way. (Luckily, we are only shown large quantities of blood on the floor and walls; the show shies away from showing the bodies, though we will get hints through dialogue about the exact method of killing.) Soon the husband (Allen Lafferty) is taken into custody, his clothes soaked in his wife’s blood. The killer claims that his wife was murdered by men with beards like “Mormon prophets” and continually ties his wife’s murder back to early church history stories, particularly Joseph and Emma marrying against her father’s will. We then get a flashback to a young Brenda. She is an energetic and ambitious young woman who transfers to BYU after being tired of “holding girl’s hair back while they puked” at her party school in Idaho. Allen introduces Brenda to his family at a large family dinner. His brothers seem both strangely attracted to her and judgmental of her for her ambition and less strict faith (caffeinated soda is mentioned). The Lafferty family band together to clear a neighbor’s land to prevent it from being seized by the federal government to build a highway. In the present, Detective Pyre’s partner Bill visits Allen’s brother Robin’s home and finds the house abandoned and papers burning. They arrest Robin after a chase through a motel. This episode depicts the First Vision. It shows Joseph going to the woods to pray and a light shining down on him. The script draws parallels between Joseph’s prayer and Robin’s prayer in the woods before he is caught by the police, which doesn’t really make much sense except that they are both kneeling in a natural setting. We also get a scene of Joseph and Emma discussing whether to marry against her father’s wishes. The show tries to make a big deal of them choosing between “God’s will” and her father’s authority, implying that the problem is that they can justify almost anything as God’s will. I found this assertion pretty strange, given that Joseph and Emma were hardly the first couple to marry against a parent’s wishes. It seems a thin justification on which to hang a condemnation of trusting God. Shibboleths—It’s apparent that the showrunners have made an effort to try to include jargon of Latter-day Saints in the dialogue. Sometimes this works: the Pyre family prayer scene feels exactly like the ones that take place in my family. Others make it apparent that the writers are not members of the community. While we do refer to God as Heavenly Father, particularly in prayer, we don’t use this term exclusively like the characters in the show. I regularly hear members refer to him as “God” or “the Lord,” and a brief search of the church’s 1980’s general conference talks shows that this isn’t a new innovation. While there is

For This Cause Have I Been Lifted Up

In Christ’s own words of explanation for His final dark days, there are profound symbolic teachings about the glorious resurrection and perfect judgment that will follow for all of us.

Podcasts for July from our Podcast Family!

Welcome to July’s lineup of Public Square Media episodes.  The engaging perspectives of Scott and JC of Family Bro Evening, shed light on American politics and church history, meticulously examining the involvement of the LDS church in political affairs, they expound upon scriptural teachings on politics and violence, and bring illuminating conversation to the profound lessons to be gleaned from tragic events in early church history.  Over at Pop Culture on the Apricot Tree, join esteemed hosts Liz and Carl as they embark on an intellectual journey, delving into the realms of pop culture and its profound impact on our understanding of American history and church history. In an analysis of the filmed version of the musical Hamilton they traverse the nuanced representation of American historical figures through the lens of a diverse cast, provoking contemplation on the complex topic of revering flawed heroes. Additionally, their exploration of church history dismantles inaccuracies propagated in the true crime miniseries Under the Banner of Heaven, advocating for a more sophisticated and balanced approach to historical narratives. Next, prepare yourself for an enlightening conversation with esteemed academic, and Editor in Chief of Public Square Magazine, Danny Frost, who visits The Raising Family Podcast with a critically thoughtful analysis of Paragraph 8 of The Family: A Proclamation to the World, where he navigates intricate questions surrounding the decline of chastity in contemporary society, discusses fostering compassion without normalizing conflicting behaviors, and how we can advocate for political policies that align with our moral convictions. And finally, expanding the discourse, our hosts at Sit Down with Sky and Amanda, engage in a captivating examination of masculinity and fatherhood, contrasting societal definitions with divine perspectives, all while graciously addressing sincere questions. We hope this month’s curated episodes inform your thinking, spark meaningful conversations, and inspire civil discourse. Stay tuned for more thought-provoking content from Public Square Media in the months to come. Family Bro Evening:  Do You Have to Be Conservative to Be LDS? and The Battle of Fort Utah Pop Culture on the Apricot Tree: Filmed version of the musical Hamilton and Recent true crime miniseries Under the Banner of Heaven Raising Family: The Decline of Chastity, Moral Vocabulary and Aristotle Sit Down with Sky and Amanda: Divine Masculinity