🔗 Share this article

The acclaimed actor could be the ideal selection for a audacious horror film centered on Jesus Christ, however not for the motivations certain audiences could guess. Actually, Cage doesn't actually portray Jesus in the new film: his character is credited simply as The Carpenter. The actor is positioned as the Joseph of this story, working to keep his beliefs while the teenage character (acted by Noah Jupe), their teenage adopted son, begins to show supernatural abilities. Why it's hard to imagine a different major actor in this role is that even as his character is burdened with various difficulties, the actor seems almost touchingly confident that this dark, bleak small film is worth his time.

The Actor's Current Career Choices

Nicolas Cage has been allocating that time more judiciously lately. He continues to makes more films than the majority of regular audiences will ever see — for instance, are you aware that the man has made three separate Westerns recently? — however he also mixes in high-profile independent films like Dream Scenario, another notable movie, and a further title. This new film sounds like a similar project, as it’s borderline horror, likely to stir debate, and approaches a over-the-top premise quite seriously.

Movie's Premise and Execution

Regrettably, writer-director the director does not reward viewer engagement. The Carpenter’s Son opens in a engagingly rootless setting, presented as inspired by an unknown scripture about the early years of Jesus. The Carpenter, The Mother, and their son relocate frequently, anxious of doctrinal intolerance or suspicion regarding The Boy’s unusual abilities. “Disaster trails us,” The Carpenter mournfully notes. This persists when evil influences target them at their new home, beginning with that well-known scriptural test for the youth.

Occasionally, the film echoes an Exorcist-style supernatural thriller, except that not one of the lead characters are directly possessed. Instead, they grow progressively isolated from one another, when these powers influence a resident female (the actress, named “The Stranger”) who the son forms a relationship with, and provides everyone troubling visions of a grim future. Cage's role in particular struggles with his role within the plot, occasionally chastising the son who mystifies him.

Debate and Sensitivity

This material is apt to invite debate, and the director handles it with much sensitivity — too much, maybe. The idea of a adolescent facing his eventual sacrifice and seduced by unknown powers is indeed scary, but Nathan may be hesitant regarding looking exploitative and anxious to signal his intentions, so he often retreats into gloomily threatening visuals. The figures brood incessantly — FKA Twigs, who showed genuine potential in the 2024 Crow remake, interestingly — surrenders her acting to her character's costume, occasionally interrupted by several disturbing frightening scenes.

The Star's Portrayal and Movie's Flaws

At the same time, Cage flirts with just the sort of melodramatic acting that his more snickering appreciators may desire. There is a moment (shown) in promotional material in which he erupts and yells “My faith has been shattered!” Should such of florid outburst is included in a Jesus-themed horror movie, maybe a more openly absurd method would make better use of Cage’s willingness to exaggerate as required. On the other hand, the film more closely resembles the less successful straight-to-DVD films the actor filmed during the last decade — not the cheesy thrillers but rather the serious stories and ghost stories that typically appear interesting, and frequently include a few choice Cage moments, but finally come across like, indeed, low-budget DTV material.

Honestly, a number of those, though not as grand, were more watchable in general. This is when I have to break my personal rule, not faith-based but work-oriented: Previously, an admired senior convinced me to banish descriptive terms like “tedious” or “uninteresting” from my film-criticism vocabulary. These phrases convey little except a subjective and broadly stated impatience, avoiding the task of clearly expressing the mental and sensation of watching a specific film. It's hard to communicate boredom without seeming uninteresting personally. It's just as unclear as calling a movie “engaging.” “Say more,” essentially.

But I must confess, I grew weary for a large part of the film. To the movie’s non-exploitative credit, it is a religious style of stultification, not because this movie is preachy, but since it takes a sort of obedient endurance to view it. Eventually soon after starting, the movie locks into a repetitive rhythm of simmering anguish, and fails to