🔗 Share this article

Nicolas Cage may be the optimal selection for a audacious scary movie focused on the biblical figure, though not for the reasons many viewers could guess. Truthfully, Cage doesn't even play Jesus in The Carpenter’s Son: the part he plays is listed simply as The Carpenter. He is framed as the Joseph of this tale, attempting to uphold his faith while The Boy (acted by Noah Jupe), his adolescent foster child, commences to show supernatural abilities. The explanation it’s difficult to picture a different prominent performer playing this part is that while the role becomes weighed down with multiple difficulties, Cage himself looks nearly moving convinced that this dark, grim little movie is deserving of his effort.

Cage's Current Career Choices

Nicolas Cage has been using that time more carefully recently. He continues to does more movies than most casual fans could possibly view — for instance, did you know that the actor has filmed a trio of distinct Westerns over the last few years? — yet he also includes high-profile independent films such as one recent hit, Pig, and Longlegs. The Carpenter’s Son sounds like a similar project, as it’s not strictly scary, likely to stir debate, and takes a campy-sounding concept in a earnest manner.

The Film's Plot and Direction

Unfortunately, filmmaker Lotfy Nathan does not justify viewer engagement. The Carpenter’s Son starts from a compellingly nomadic context, positioned as based on an apocryphal lost gospel about Christ’s childhood. The Carpenter, the maternal figure, and their child move from place to place, fearful of faith-based hostility or doubt about The Boy’s strange powers. “Trouble pursues us,” The Carpenter mournfully notes. That continues as evil influences focus on them in their latest settlement, beginning with that traditional religious challenge for the youth.

Sometimes, the movie mirrors an demonic possession-type supernatural thriller, except that not one of the lead characters are directly possessed. Rather, they become increasingly alienated from one another, while these forces affect a resident female (Isla Johnston, named an outsider) that The Boy forms a relationship with, and presents everyone disturbing images of a dark tomorrow. Cage's role especially struggles with his role in the narrative, sometimes scolding the boy he can’t fully understand.

Controversy and Sensitivity

The content is prone to court controversy, and Nathan approaches it with a lot of care — too much, maybe. The notion of a adolescent confronted with his destined offering and lured by dark influences is indeed terrifying, but Nathan could be cautious about appearing sensational and keen to signal his intentions, so he often falls back on gloomily threatening filming. The roles brood incessantly — FKA Twigs, who demonstrated real promise in a recent film update, of all things — cedes her acting to her religious attire, occasionally interrupted by several gnarly horror imagery.

Cage's Portrayal and Film's Weaknesses

At the same time, Cage flirts with precisely the type of melodramatic acting that his more snickering appreciators could be expecting. One scene (also included) in previews in which he loses control and shouts “My faith has been shattered!” Should such of dramatic explosion is part of your Jesus-themed horror movie, perhaps a more brazenly silly approach would take better advantage of Cage’s willingness to be extreme as required. Instead, the film more closely resembles the poorer direct-to-video movies Cage made through much of that period — excluding the campy action films so much as the narrative films and paranormal movies that always sound promising, and frequently include a few choice actor's highlights, but ultimately feel like, indeed, cheap home video fare.

Frankly, a number of those, while less ambitious, were more entertaining overall. At this point I have to disregard my own dogma, not religious but work-oriented: Years back, a beloved editor urged me to eliminate descriptive terms like “tedious” or “uninteresting” from my reviewing language. These words express scant except a personal and broadly stated restlessness, withdrawing from the job of vibrantly communicating the thoughtful and sensation of watching a specific film. It's challenging to communicate tedium without appearing dull oneself. It's equally vague as labeling a movie “engaging.” “Elaborate,” that is.

Yet, I acknowledge, I was bored during much of the film. On the positive side, it’s a churchy kind of boredom, not due to this movie is lecturing, but because it requires a type of obedient endurance to sit through it. Eventually in the beginning, the film enters a cyclic tempo of simmering anguish, and fails to