🔗 Share this article

Nicolas Cage may be the optimal pick for a audacious scary movie focused on the biblical figure, but not for the motivations many viewers might assume. In reality, Cage doesn't actually play Jesus in the new film: his role is listed simply as a craftsman. He is cast as a father figure within this tale, striving to maintain his faith while the teenage character (acted by the young actor), his adolescent foster child, commences to exhibit supernatural abilities. The explanation it's hard to envision any other major actor taking this character is that although the figure grows burdened with various challenges, the actor seems nearly touchingly convinced that this dark, somber little movie is deserving of his effort.

The Actor's Current Projects

Nicolas Cage has been using his time more judiciously recently. He yet makes additional projects than the majority of regular audiences may ever watch — for example, did you know that he has filmed several distinct Westerns over the last few years? — yet he also adds prestige independent films like one recent hit, another notable movie, and Longlegs. The Carpenter’s Son sounds like a similar project, in that it’s genre-adjacent, likely to stir debate, and approaches a exaggerated description in a earnest manner.

The Film's Plot and Execution

Sadly, filmmaker Lotfy Nathan fails to repay viewer engagement. The film opens in a engagingly rootless context, marketed as inspired by an unknown scripture about the youthful days of the messiah. Cage's character, the maternal figure, and their son relocate frequently, anxious of religious persecution or doubt regarding their son's mysterious gifts. “Calamity follows us,” The Carpenter sadly observes. That continues as evil influences focus on the household at their new home, getting a jump-start on that well-known scriptural test for The Boy.

At times, this production echoes an demonic possession-type possession movie, but no one of the lead characters are directly possessed. Rather, they grow progressively isolated mutually, while these entities affect a nearby girl (the actress, credited as an outsider) that The Boy forms a relationship with, and gives each character unsettling premonitions of a grim future. The Carpenter in particular grapples with his place within the plot, sometimes scolding his child he doesn't completely grasp.

Discussion and Sensitivity

The content is apt to invite debate, and Nathan approaches it with much delicacy — overly, maybe. The idea of a young man facing his destined offering and lured by unknown powers is certainly scary, but the filmmaker may be wary of seeming gratuitous and eager to indicate his aims, so he often withdraws to darkly ominous cinematography. Characters continually reflect — the singer-actress, who displayed real promise in another movie, of all things — cedes her performance to her character's costume, at times punctuated by a few disturbing frightening scenes.

Cage's Performance and Movie's Shortcomings

Meanwhile, the actor dabbles in exactly the kind of melodramatic acting that his ironic fans could be expecting. An instance (featured) in promotional material in which he flips out and screams “My faith has been shattered!” If that kind of dramatic explosion is part of a Jesus-themed horror movie, perhaps a more boldly ridiculous style would take better advantage of the actor's readiness to go over the top as required. Rather, The Carpenter’s Son echoes the less successful direct-to-video films the actor filmed through much of the last decade — apart from the B-movies but rather the narrative films and supernatural thrillers that always sound promising, and frequently include some select Cage moments, but finally come across like, well, cheap home video fare.

Truthfully, several of these, though not as grand, were more entertaining as a whole. At this point I have to break my own dogma, not faith-based but professional: Years back, a beloved editor persuaded me to eliminate adjectives like “tedious” or “uninteresting” from my film-criticism vocabulary. These words convey little except a individual and vaguely expressed restlessness, avoiding the task of vividly conveying the mental and sensation of watching a particular movie. It's hard to convey tedium without seeming uninteresting personally. It’s no more expressive as terming a movie “engaging.” “Explain further,” that is.

But I must confess, I felt uninterested throughout the film. In its defense, it is a churchy kind of stultification, not for this movie is lecturing, but since it requires a kind of dutiful submission to watch it. At some point early on, the film settles into a repetitive rhythm of simmering anguish, and does not