Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Quoting myself. I don't know if this is a good movie for true believing members. It's probably offensive. From some reviews by those that have seen it. I was going to go with my son and his girlfriend. She was a missionary in a very poor country and nearly died from a flesh eating disease. I saw a picture of her and the IV bottle they used in this so called hospital came from a Gatorade bottle. And while they were over to watch the BYU/UTE game last night, she mentioned that her and her companion probably shouldn't have gone into many homes on their missions especially with just a man at the home. Maybe this movie could be triggering for her to watch.

I believe the good thing about the movie is that it portrays the dangers for missionaries. And luckily the church does train the missionaries through the MTC training period with what they should be aware of. There are many stories out there that missionaries don't really talk about and I feel for them, because they are doing what they are told the Lord wants them to do, so they probably endure way more than what they normally would put up with. 

 

I read a reveiw published by a returned sister missionary yesterday about it and she really really liked it, so hopefully that's a good sign.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I read a reveiw published by a returned sister missionary yesterday about it and she really really liked it, so hopefully that's a good sign.

Oh, that's good then!

[Amulek]

On 11/9/2024 at 6:57 PM, Calm said:

Generally I hate it. Too visual of a memory so I can get haunted for years by images that make me ill.

I agree. Some things are just hard to unsee.

I'll take a real psychological thriller like Wait Until Dark over jump scares and ick any day of the week.

 

Quote

There are a few more mild, fantasy horror films that I enjoy…obviously could never happen in the real world. Mummies and vampires usually.  Probably more adventure than horror though. 

I think the only horror film I've ever really enjoyed was Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth.

Wikipedia characterizes it as being a "historical dark fantasy" movie, so maybe that one doesn't count as horror any longer.

It's still a really well made film - all in Spanish, with English subtitles. The R rating is primarily from violence and gore though, so it may not be for you.

 

Quote

People doing awful things to people and some getting off on it, those films I will avoid like the plague. The worst are putting people in situations where they have to turn on others to save themselves. 

While there is something to be said for experiencing fear from a place of safety, I see nothing redeeming about celebrating the worst of humanity.

I remember watching a documentary once about the soldiers who were assigned to work in German concentration camps during WWII. It was a frightening look at the psychopathy associated with repeated exposure to (and eventual participation in) that kind of violence. Definitely worth avoiding.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I agree. Some things are just hard to unsee.

I'll take a real psychological thriller like Wait Until Dark over jump scares and ick any day of the week.

 

I think the only horror film I've ever really enjoyed was Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth.

Wikipedia characterizes it as being a "historical dark fantasy" movie, so maybe that one doesn't count as horror any longer.

It's still a really well made film - all in Spanish, with English subtitles. The R rating is primarily from violence and gore though, so it may not be for you.

 

While there is something to be said for experiencing fear from a place of safety, I see nothing redeeming about celebrating the worst of humanity.

I remember watching a documentary once about the soldiers who were assigned to work in German concentration camps during WWII. It was a frightening look at the psychopathy associated with repeated exposure to (and eventual participation in) that kind of violence. Definitely worth avoiding.

 

I totally agree, loved "Wait Until Dark", that ages us, haha!

[bluebell]

I like scary movies.  I do not like gross movies.  One doesn't have anything to do with the other and movies that depend on body parts and blood to scare the viewer are made by and for people who are a little (or maybe a lot) messed up.

IMHO of course.  

I like movies like Poltergeist from back in the day.  Or the Insidious franchise is a fun scare.  The conjuring is pretty terrifying as is the exorcist but demon movies are tricky.  Sometimes I think they leave a bad 'spirit' behind for people who are sensitive to that kind of stuff

[Tacenda]

Here's a YouTube from someone who is active in the church and talking about how the movie gets it wrong and right. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

The R rating is primarily from violence and gore though, so it may not be for you.

I wanted to watch it as it looks beautiful but the eyes on hands and some other images are too disturbing for me, so I chickened out.  Once I see those with music, which means emotional….it’s going to be stuck.  Right now I think of the elegant stuff when I think of it.  Every now and then I think I am going to watch it, look at a few stills to check and then remember why it’s on my don’t go there list, lol.  Looks brilliant.

Edited November 12, 2024 by Calm

[sunstoned]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wanted to watch it as it looks beautiful but the eyes on hands and some other images are too disturbing for me, so I chickened out.  Once I see those with music, which means emotional….it’s going to be stuck.  Right now I think of the elegant stuff when I think of it.  Every now and then I think I am going to watch it, look at a few stills to check and then remember why it’s on my don’t go there list, lol.  Looks brilliant.

Same here. I usually avoid horror movies, but I decided to watch this one because it focuses on missionaries. However, after reading some reviews, I changed my mind (read: chickened out).

I hope this movie doesn't draw undue attention to sister missionaries or missionaries in general. They are already valuable, and I wouldn't want this movie to exacerbate this. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

valuable

Vulnerable?  Valuable works too.  

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Same here. I usually avoid horror movies, but I decided to watch this one because it focuses on missionaries. However, after reading some reviews, I changed my mind (read: chickened out).

I hope this movie doesn't draw undue attention to sister missionaries or missionaries in general. They are already valuable, and I wouldn't want this movie to exacerbate this. 

What in the reviews made you rethink your choice? 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What in the reviews made you rethink your choice? 

I don't do well with drama and violence.  I can't sleep after movies like that.

[california boy]

I just came back from watching Heretic and wanted to share my thoughts, particularly for those who, like me, might have heard about it but aren't sure whether to see it. First, I should say that I don’t typically watch slasher films. From what I had heard about this movie, I expected it to be filled with graphic violence and gore. However, Heretic is not a typical slasher film. While there are two violent deaths in the story, it’s not focused on graphic killings. As someone who is sensitive to violence in media, I found these scenes uncomfortable, though they weren’t excessive. In fact, the level of violence is comparable to what you might see in many TV shows like NCIS or other crime dramas, which I wouldn’t consider unwatchable.

What really stands out in Heretic is its exploration of religious themes, especially as they relate to the Church. The film addresses several teachings and doctrines that might be unsettling for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the portrayal of certain aspects of Mormonism is factually accurate, it is presented in a way that isn’t aligned with how the Church would typically present its teachings—there’s no Church-approved correlation or context to soften the message. For some members, this direct approach may be difficult to watch. While not near as detailed, the issues discussed is more like how the CES Letter presents things.  After watching the film, I also watched the critique posted about  by the apologist above, and I agreed with much of her analysis. The film does a good job of accurately portraying Mormon beliefs, though there were a few details that didn’t seem quite right to me as well.  The biggest was the discussion the two women missionaries have about condoms, which seemed highly unlikely. And the second is portraying one elder shown in the film not having a companion.

However, the part of the film that really stood out was the character played by Hugh Grant, who delivers a broader critique of religion as a whole. While the film addresses Mormonism specifically, much of Grant's character’s argument is directed at religion in general. He suggests that religion, throughout history, has been used as a tool for control. This is a theme that resonates with many people who may have distanced themselves from faith or who have experienced struggles with organized religion.

The larger message of the film seems to be about the role religion plays in controlling people. As I was leaving the theater, I couldn’t help but think about how, if the filmmakers had chosen to focus on the Catholic Church instead of Mormonism, most people on this board would have had a very different reaction. In fact, I suspect most on this board wouldn’t find it offensive at all, and it would be seen as just another film about the dangers of religious control

I’m not going to give a simple thumbs up or thumbs down for Heretic. It’s a film that’s intense in both its themes and its execution. At one point, my partner literally jumped out of his seat during a tense moment (think Wait Until Dark level of shock). 

In the end, Heretic is a thought-provoking film that challenges its viewers to think critically about faith, control, and the role of religion in society. While it does touch on themes that may be uncomfortable for members of the Church, it’s not solely focused on Mormonism. For those who are open to a more critical perspective on organized religion, the film offers a challenging but potentially valuable reflection.  I’d encourage anyone considering watching it to approach the film with an open mind.

[MustardSeed]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

I just came back from watching Heretic and wanted to share my thoughts, particularly for those who, like me, might have heard about it but aren't sure whether to see it. First, I should say that I don’t typically watch slasher films. From what I had heard about this movie, I expected it to be filled with graphic violence and gore. However, Heretic is not a typical slasher film. While there are two violent deaths in the story, it’s not focused on graphic killings. As someone who is sensitive to violence in media, I found these scenes uncomfortable, though they weren’t excessive. In fact, the level of violence is comparable to what you might see in many TV shows like NCIS or other crime dramas, which I wouldn’t consider unwatchable.

What really stands out in Heretic is its exploration of religious themes, especially as they relate to the Church. The film addresses several teachings and doctrines that might be unsettling for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the portrayal of certain aspects of Mormonism is factually accurate, it is presented in a way that isn’t aligned with how the Church would typically present its teachings—there’s no Church-approved correlation or context to soften the message. For some members, this direct approach may be difficult to watch. While not near as detailed, the issues discussed is more like how the CES Letter presents things.  After watching the film, I also watched the critique posted about  by the apologist above, and I agreed with much of her analysis. The film does a good job of accurately portraying Mormon beliefs, though there were a few details that didn’t seem quite right to me as well.  The biggest was the discussion the two women missionaries have about condoms, which seemed highly unlikely. And the second is portraying one elder shown in the film not having a companion.

However, the part of the film that really stood out was the character played by Hugh Grant, who delivers a broader critique of religion as a whole. While the film addresses Mormonism specifically, much of Grant's character’s argument is directed at religion in general. He suggests that religion, throughout history, has been used as a tool for control. This is a theme that resonates with many people who may have distanced themselves from faith or who have experienced struggles with organized religion.

The larger message of the film seems to be about the role religion plays in controlling people. As I was leaving the theater, I couldn’t help but think about how, if the filmmakers had chosen to focus on the Catholic Church instead of Mormonism, most people on this board would have had a very different reaction. In fact, I suspect most on this board wouldn’t find it offensive at all, and it would be seen as just another film about the dangers of religious control

I’m not going to give a simple thumbs up or thumbs down for Heretic. It’s a film that’s intense in both its themes and its execution. At one point, my partner literally jumped out of his seat during a tense moment (think Wait Until Dark level of shock). 

In the end, Heretic is a thought-provoking film that challenges its viewers to think critically about faith, control, and the role of religion in society. While it does touch on themes that may be uncomfortable for members of the Church, it’s not solely focused on Mormonism. For those who are open to a more critical perspective on organized religion, the film offers a challenging but potentially valuable reflection.  I’d encourage anyone considering watching it to approach the film with an open mind.

I’m very impressed by this write up - thanks 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I totally agree, loved "Wait Until Dark", that ages us, haha!

Well, I didn't see it in theaters or anything.

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 

In the end, Heretic is a thought-provoking film that challenges its viewers to think critically about faith, control, and the role of religion in society. While it does touch on themes that may be uncomfortable for members of the Church, it’s not solely focused on Mormonism. For those who are open to a more critical perspective on organized religion, the film offers a challenging but potentially valuable reflection.  I’d encourage anyone considering watching it to approach the film with an open mind.

Is this one of those types of horror movies or dramas where part of the horror is how it gives you more in common with the evil person than the victim (or works to get the viewer to relate to the evil person in some way)?

It's interesting to me that the 'monster' in this movie is the person that is critical of organized religion, when it seems like the creators of the movie themselves (along with a lot of people who will watch it) are critical of religion.  Do you think that was purposeful, so that it's not just the religious viewers that are meant to be uncomfortable having their views challenged, but nonreligious viewers as well?

One of my favorite WWII movies is called Downfall (it's in german so you have to read the subtitles) and it's about the last few days of Hitler's life and when germany finally falls (based on the recollections of his personal secretary).  I thought the movie was genius because it really shows how horrible and zealous the third reich leadership was but it also makes you relate to Hitler and a few of the other characters, which is not a comfortable place to be.  It doesn't make him less of a monster (and it's not trying to) but it does present him as a man, someone who was evil but also could be someone's grandfather or favorite uncle. 

I think movies that can pull that type of thing off are ingenious.  Monsters and heroes are easy to make, but getting the audience to feel uneasy about the hero or find common ground with the monster, that takes some skill in my view.  And serves more of a purpose than just entertainment I think.

Edited November 12, 2024 by bluebell

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is this one of those types of horror movies or dramas where part of the horror is how it gives you more in common with the evil person than the victim (or works to get the viewer to relate to the evil person in some way)?

It's interesting to me that the 'monster' in this movie is the person that is critical of organized religion, when it seems like the creators of the movie themselves (along with a lot of people who will watch it) are critical of religion.  Do you think that was purposeful, so that it's not just the religious viewers that are meant to be uncomfortable having their views challenged, but nonreligious viewers as well?

The Hugh Grant character comes across as respectful, engaging and very bright.  He justifies what he is doing by logically showing the two missionaries glaring holes in what their religion and religion is in general is about by using object lessons.  He isn't scary at all, in fact he is quite charming.  But there is a constant feeling that things aren't as they appear.  So yes, he is a very likable 'monster'. . .until he isn't.  It becomes clear that his obsession with his study of religion has lead him to a very unhealthy place.

 If you think organized religion is a scam and all about control and power, you are probably going to leave with the same opinion.  If you think religion is connected to God and doing his will, you will probably leave with that view still intact.  

[Kevin Christensen]

California boy observed:

Quote

However, the part of the film that really stood out was the character played by Hugh Grant, who delivers a broader critique of religion as a whole. While the film addresses Mormonism specifically, much of Grant's character’s argument is directed at religion in general. He suggests that religion, throughout history, has been used as a tool for control. This is a theme that resonates with many people who may have distanced themselves from faith or who have experienced struggles with organized religion.

The larger message of the film seems to be about the role religion plays in controlling people. 

What an an intellectually daring and challenging thought. How can any religion survive in the shining light of that incisive and original dissection?

Quote

I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true. (Alma 30:23-24)

Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people.  (2 Nephi 5:3)

Why use stories to control people?  It is much more direct and to the point to use the threat of violence. Particularly since

Quote

every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime (hence "deregulation" particularly on laws limiting just how rich a person can get, and laws concerning health and the environment and fairness and justice, that limit the most powerful and wealthy and ambitious to do whatever they want).

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

Hence the completely new narrative of religion, 

Quote

therefore they can keep us in ignorance, for we cannot witness with our own eyes that they are true.

21 And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them, for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives. (Helaman 16:20-21)

My wife and daughter were missionaries.  We will look forward to Hugh Grant in the next Bridget Jones movie, What About the Boy.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Edited November 12, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Quote

The larger message of the film seems to be about the role religion plays in controlling people. 

What an an intellectually daring and challenging thought. How can any religion survive in the shining light of that incise and original dissection?

Why use stories to control people?  It is much more direct and to the point to use the threat of violence.

And the Church specifically disclaims any authority to use violence or the threat thereof:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

And we are having this discussion about "control" on a message board heavily populated by people who have left the Church, about which leavings the Church can do diddly squat.

My loyalty and devotion to the Restored Gospel is a matter of volition.  Choice.  My submission to the authority of the Church is something I can grant or withdraw at any time for any reason or no reason at all.  The Church only has as much influence/control over me as I choose to allow.

The movie's narrative about "control" does not hold up well relative to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the Church specifically disclaims any authority to use violence or the threat thereof:

And we are having this discussion about "control" on a message board heavily populated by people who have left the Church, about which leavings the Church can do diddly squat.

My loyalty and devotion to the Restored Gospel is a matter of volition.  Choice.  My submission to the authority of the Church is something I can grant or withdraw at any time for any reason or no reason at all.  The Church only has as much influence/control over me as I choose to allow.

The movie's narrative about "control" does not hold up well relative to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Thanks,

-Smac

To play devils advocate- 

I can also choose not to participate in my family of origins activities, and I could even disown my family of origin. **I choose to interact with them.** nobody’s forcing me to show up.  However, I do acknowledge there are things in my family dynamics that lie below the surface that influence me to a point beyond choice in my opinion. 

Until dynamics are brought to my attention, I am largely controlled by certain things I am unaware of. To some degree, the larger family is unaware of the fact that they are attempting to control me. Also, I am in some areas most likely attempting to control my family of origin in ways that I am not aware of. I am part of the system.

I think it’s the same with church. This is part of my present journey of trying to figure out What does God actually want from me?  And what is unnecessary?

Perhaps that’s too deep for a Tuesday morning. 
 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

California boy observed:

What an an intellectually daring and challenging thought. How can any religion survive in the shining light of that incisive and original dissection?

Why use stories to control people?  It is much more direct and to the point to use the threat of violence. Particularly since

Hence the completely new narrative of religion, 

My wife and daughter were missionaries.  We will look forward to Hugh Grant in the next Bridget Jones movie, What About the Boy.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

Or my very favorite, Notting Hill. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Control and influence are very very different things.  And the means available for individuals and institutions to implement them are also very very different. 

FWIW,for 

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Mountain View, CA

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

To play devils advocate- 

I can also choose not to participate in my family of origins activities,

Yes.

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

and I could even disown my family of origin.

Yes.  Shunning seems to be moving into a bilateral thing.

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

**I choose to interact with them.** nobody’s forcing me to show up.  However, I do acknowledge there are things in my family dynamics that lie below the surface that influence me to a point beyond choice in my opinion. 

I don't know what you mean by "influence ... beyond choice."  Of course we all have "influences" in our lives, but when it negates choice, it's no longer mere "influence."

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Until dynamics are brought to my attention, I am largely controlled by certain things I am unaware of. To some degree, the larger family is unaware of the fact that they are attempting to control me. Also, I am in some areas most likely attempting to control my family of origin in ways that I am not aware of. I am part of the system.

I think it’s the same with church. This is part of my present journey of trying to figure out What does God actually want from me?  And what is unnecessary?

Perhaps that’s too deep for a Tuesday morning. 

I think the Lord wants from us a "broken heart and a contrite spirit."  He wants us to be obedient.  But He wants us to give Him these things by choice, not by coercion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

think it’s the same with church. This is part of my present journey of trying to figure out What does God actually want from me?  And what is unnecessary?

I think the church culture is very influential on how members who have grown up in the Church view choice.  I don’t know about converts as I haven’t had the ability to observe closely as I did as a youth.  
 

This was something I became very aware of even as a kid because of the unusual circumstances of my mother’s health issues and her taking the time when I was 9 iirc to explain that she had grown up in a traditional home where the Church was the focus of social life even when they lived on the East Coast (she lived in SLC until her early teens iirc).  Her parents were very devout and active. They were the home the General Authorities typically stayed at when visiting the area, had missionaries living with them at times etc.  Anyway, for the first part of my life, Mom did everything and did it well.  She was Den Mother and did all the work for my dad the Scout Master so he only had to show up and perform more or less (he also helped people behind d the scenes, he hated the details though).  She would go all out for Halloween making costumes for us and herself. She made Barbie doll clothes that would have been considered classy in the full size version.  We went to all of our meetings except Stake Conference, Dad was not the kind of person who wanted to sit for two hours trying to control 5 kids.  When they were back east, Mom did all the female callings and Dad the male ones except when the one or two boys showed up to pass the Sacrament.  Mom also played the piano and maybe Dad led the music?  Kind of hard to picture that last bit.  
 

Then Mom got hit with what we would now call chronic fatigue. Possibly fibromyalgia.   She recognized she could no longer do it all. So she decided to start from scratch and completely withdrew from church and public social life and then after a couple of years of getting her health stabilized, she consciously chose what she would add in and what she wasn’t. And since Dad wasn’t interested in taking about the details, he wanted to be about doing rather than thinking, Mom talked to me instead about her reasoning, which included what she saw as traditions and culture and what she saw as required by the Lord and our covenants.  And she did a massive amount of studying and praying to figure out which was which.

So at the age of ten, I was looking at the Church in that way, what I needed to do to be a faithful member vs what I needed to do to be a typical traditional member and of the optional stuff, what I wanted to choose to do. 

However, where I could often easily see a choice was open to me without me rebelling against church authority, it became clear that my church mates did not always see it as the same optional behavior and I got scolded on occasion for breaking the rules that didn’t actually exist, but were people’s expectations.  

It is interesting how rigid some people see the church and others like me see it as quite flexible. 

Edited November 12, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Lord wants from us a "broken heart and a contrite spirit."  He wants us to be obedient.  But He wants us to give Him these things by choice, not by coercion.

100%.  
we also have to contend with leadership that at times can operate from a need to control.  Having experienced that too often, it leaves me to have to discern what is God’s will versus what is man’s will. That is my life journey.

Edited November 12, 2024 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

don't know what you mean by "influence ... beyond choice."  Of course we all have "influences" in our lives, but when it negates choice, it's no longer mere "influence."

I was unclear. 
If I operate in a way that comes from lack of self awareness, a way that my family has always operated and I am influenced by those traditions, I am not in control.  The family dynamics are in control.  Subconsciously the family system likes to maintain status quo so they will predictably try to keep me operating in *sameness, even if change is harmless or even indicated.  I see this happening with church traditions as well.