🔗 Share this article

The acclaimed actor may be the perfect pick for a daring horror film centered on Jesus Christ, but not for the motivations some audiences could guess. Truthfully, Cage doesn't actually portray Jesus in The Carpenter’s Son: his character is listed merely as The Carpenter. He is cast as a father figure within this story, working to keep his religious convictions as the teenage character (played by the young actor), their now-teenage adopted son, begins to show miraculous gifts. Why it's challenging to picture another major actor in this role is that although the figure is weighed down with numerous difficulties, the actor appears nearly moving convinced that the gloomy, somber little movie is deserving of his effort.

The Actor's Latest Projects

Nicolas Cage has been spending those years more carefully recently. He continues to does more movies than most average viewers could possibly view — for example, were you informed that he has completed three different cowboy movies recently? — however he also mixes in high-profile independent films such as one recent hit, Pig, and a further title. The Carpenter’s Son sounds like one of those, because it’s borderline horror, likely to stir debate, and handles a exaggerated concept with gravity.

Movie's Plot and Handling

Unfortunately, writer-director Lotfy Nathan does not reward viewer engagement. The Carpenter’s Son begins with a interestingly wandering context, positioned as inspired by an apocryphal lost gospel concerning Christ’s childhood. Cage's character, the maternal figure, and their child relocate frequently, fearful of religious persecution or doubt over their son's unusual abilities. “Calamity follows us,” Cage mournfully notes. This persists when sinister entities target them where they currently live, beginning on the traditional religious challenge for the son.

Sometimes, this production resembles an demonic possession-type horror film, except that no one of the central roles are clearly inhabited. Rather, they grow increasingly alienated from one another, while these entities infect a local young woman (Isla Johnston, listed as “The Stranger”) who The Boy bonds with, and provides everyone disturbing images of a grim future. Cage's role in particular fights with his role in this story, occasionally scolding his child he can’t fully understand.

Controversy and Care

This material is apt to invite debate, and the director handles it with a lot of care — overly, possibly. The concept of a young man confronted with his eventual sacrifice and tempted by dark influences is indeed scary, but the filmmaker may be cautious about appearing sensational and keen to telegraph his goals, therefore he regularly withdraws to dimly foreboding filming. The figures brood incessantly — the singer-actress, who displayed real promise in a recent film update, of all things — yields her role to her Mother Mary cloak, at times punctuated by several gnarly horror imagery.

Cage's Acting and Movie's Shortcomings

Simultaneously, Cage dabbles in just the sort of melodramatic acting that those who enjoy his campier roles might be looking for. One scene (shown) in promotional material where he flips out and yells “My faith has been shattered!” If that kind of theatrical release is a component of a biblical thriller, possibly a more openly absurd style would take better advantage of his eagerness to be extreme if needed. Rather, The Carpenter’s Son is closer to the less successful direct-to-video movies Cage made over that period — excluding the campy action films but rather the serious stories and paranormal movies that often seem intriguing, and often contain some select Cage moments, but ultimately feel like, well, low-budget DTV material.

Truthfully, a number of those, though not as grand, were more watchable overall. At this point I need to disregard my usual practice, not religious but career-related: Previously, a beloved editor convinced me to banish descriptive terms like “boring” or “dull” from my film-criticism vocabulary. These phrases express scant but a subjective and broadly stated lack of patience, avoiding the job of vibrantly communicating the intellectual and feeling of seeing an individual production. It’s difficult to convey tedium without sounding boring yourself. It’s no more expressive as calling a movie “notable.” “Say more,” essentially.

But I must confess, I felt uninterested throughout the film. To the movie’s non-exploitative credit, it is a devotional type of stultification, not because this movie is moralizing, but as it demands a kind of dutiful submission to sit through it. Eventually soon after starting, this feature locks into a repetitive rhythm of simmering anguish, and does not