🔗 Share this article

Nicolas Cage could be the perfect pick for a bold scary movie about Jesus Christ, but not for the causes some fans might assume. Truthfully, the star does not even act as Jesus in The Carpenter’s Son: his role is credited only as The Carpenter. The actor is framed as a father figure within this narrative, striving to maintain his faith as his son (played by Noah Jupe), his now-teenage adopted son, starts to exhibit supernatural abilities. Why it's hard to envision any other major actor taking this character is that while his character is weighed down with various trials, Cage himself seems practically emotionally convinced that the murky, bleak little movie is worth his time.

Cage's Latest Film Selections

Cage was allocating those years more carefully in recent years. He continues to makes more films than most average viewers may ever watch — for example, were you informed that he has completed several distinct frontier films over the last few years? — yet he also adds esteemed independent films like Dream Scenario, Pig, and Longlegs. This new film appears to be in that category, as it’s borderline horror, potentially provocative, and approaches a exaggerated premise with gravity.

Movie's Plot and Direction

Sadly, filmmaker the director does not justify viewer engagement. The Carpenter’s Son opens in a engagingly rootless setting, presented as based on an apocryphal lost gospel concerning the youthful days of the messiah. The Carpenter, the maternal figure, and their child relocate from place to place, afraid of doctrinal intolerance or doubt over The Boy’s mysterious gifts. “Calamity follows us,” Cage sadly observes. It goes on when dark forces attack the family where they currently live, initiating with that familiar Biblical temptation for The Boy.

Occasionally, this production mirrors an demonic possession-type possession movie, except that none of the central roles are explicitly taken over. Instead, they become increasingly alienated from each other, as these powers infect a resident female (Isla Johnston, credited as “The Stranger”) who The Boy forms a relationship with, and presents each character disturbing images of a grim future. Cage's role notably struggles with his position in this story, at times scolding his child he doesn't completely grasp.

Debate and Caution

This material is prone to court controversy, and Nathan handles it with much sensitivity — excessive, perhaps. The idea of a teenage boy facing his future martyrdom and seduced by mysterious forces is certainly frightening, but Nathan might be wary of seeming gratuitous and eager to telegraph his intentions, thus he frequently retreats into gloomily threatening visuals. The roles constantly ponder — FKA Twigs, who showed genuine potential in another movie, interestingly — yields her performance to her religious attire, sometimes broken up by several gnarly horror imagery.

Cage's Performance and Film's Weaknesses

At the same time, Cage flirts with exactly the kind of overacting that his ironic fans could be expecting. An instance (also included) in promotional material in which he flips out and screams “My belief is broken!” Should such of florid outburst is part of your Jesus-themed horror movie, maybe a more openly absurd approach would make better use of the actor's readiness to be extreme when necessary. Instead, The Carpenter’s Son echoes the poorer straight-to-DVD films Cage made during the last decade — excluding the campy action films but rather the dramas and supernatural thrillers that always sound promising, and frequently include some select memorable scenes, but in the end seem like, well, inexpensive direct-to-consumer content.

Truthfully, several of these, though not as grand, were more entertaining in general. At this point I need to disregard my usual practice, not religious but professional: Long ago, a beloved editor persuaded me to remove descriptive terms like “tedious” or “uninteresting” from my film-criticism vocabulary. These words communicate minimal except a personal and broadly stated impatience, withdrawing from the job of vividly conveying the thoughtful and sensation of seeing an individual production. It’s difficult to express boredom without appearing dull yourself. It’s no more expressive as labeling a movie “notable.” “Say more,” in other words.

However, I admit, I was bored for a large part of the film. To the movie’s non-exploitative credit, it’s a devotional type of boredom, not for this movie is moralizing, but because it requires a type of patient acceptance to view it. After a while soon after starting, the movie locks into a cyclic tempo of simmering anguish, and fails to