🔗 Share this article

Nicolas Cage could be the perfect choice for a daring horror film about the biblical figure, however not for the motivations some audiences may think. In reality, Cage does not actually portray Jesus in The Carpenter’s Son: his character is referred to only as a craftsman. He is framed as a father figure within this tale, striving to uphold his faith while his son (played by the young actor), their adolescent foster child, begins to exhibit miraculous gifts. The reason it's challenging to envision a different prominent performer playing this part is that although his character becomes weighed down with numerous difficulties, the actor seems practically touchingly convinced that this murky, bleak feature is a valuable project.

The Actor's Recent Film Selections

Nicolas Cage has been allocating those years more selectively in recent years. He continues to makes more films than most average viewers may ever watch — for instance, were you informed that he has completed several distinct cowboy movies over the last few years? — but he also adds high-profile A24/Neon gigs like Dream Scenario, Pig, and a further title. The Carpenter’s Son seems like a similar project, in that it’s not strictly scary, possibly controversial, and approaches a campy-sounding description in a earnest manner.

The Film's Plot and Handling

Regrettably, filmmaker the director does not reward the audience's focus. The film starts from a compellingly nomadic place, presented as based on an unknown scripture about the early years of Jesus. The Carpenter, The Mother, and the boy travel frequently, anxious of religious persecution or distrust over The Boy’s strange powers. “Disaster trails us,” The Carpenter mournfully notes. It goes on when evil influences attack the household in their latest settlement, getting a jump-start on the familiar Biblical temptation for the youth.

At times, the film mirrors an Exorcist-style horror film, except that not one of the lead characters are clearly inhabited. Rather, they grow increasingly alienated from one another, as these entities infect a local young woman (Isla Johnston, credited as an outsider) who the son bonds with, and presents each character disturbing images of a bleak destiny. Cage's role especially fights with his place in this story, sometimes chastising his child he doesn't completely grasp.

Controversy and Care

The subject matter is apt to invite debate, and Nathan handles it with a lot of delicacy — overly, perhaps. The notion of a adolescent confronted with his destined offering and lured by dark influences is indeed frightening, but Nathan may be hesitant regarding looking exploitative and keen to indicate his aims, thus he frequently falls back on dimly foreboding filming. The figures continually reflect — the singer-actress, who showed real promise in another movie, interestingly — cedes her role to her Mother Mary cloak, occasionally interrupted by some disturbing frightening scenes.

The Star's Performance and Film's Flaws

At the same time, Cage toy with just the sort of melodramatic acting that those who enjoy his campier roles might be looking for. There is a moment (shown) in previews where he flips out and yells “My belief is broken!” Should such of florid outburst is included in your Jesus-themed horror movie, perhaps a more brazenly silly approach would make better use of Cage’s willingness to be extreme when necessary. Instead, The Carpenter’s Son more closely resembles the less successful low-budget movies the actor filmed during the last decade — excluding the campy action films but rather the narrative films and ghost stories that typically appear interesting, and usually have several notable Cage moments, but in the end seem like, indeed, low-budget DTV material.

Honestly, a number of those, though not as grand, were more entertaining in general. At this point I need to violate my personal rule, not spiritual but work-oriented: Long ago, a beloved editor convinced me to banish descriptive terms like “boring” or “dull” from my film-criticism vocabulary. These phrases communicate minimal except a subjective and vaguely expressed impatience, withdrawing from the duty of clearly expressing the intellectual and emotional experience of seeing an individual production. It’s difficult to communicate tedium without appearing dull personally. It’s no more expressive as terming a movie “notable.” “Explain further,” in other words.

But I must confess, I was bored during much of the film. On the positive side, it’s a devotional type of stultification, not for this movie is moralizing, but because it demands a kind of obedient endurance to watch it. After a while in the beginning, the movie locks into a cyclic tempo of simmering distress, and does not