🔗 Share this article

The acclaimed actor may be the optimal pick for a daring horror film centered on Jesus Christ, but not for the causes many audiences could guess. Actually, the star does not actually play the central religious figure in the new film: his role is listed only as The Carpenter. He is framed as the Joseph of this narrative, working to keep his faith as The Boy (played by Noah Jupe), his adolescent adopted son, commences to show divine powers. The reason it’s difficult to picture another prominent performer in this role is that while the figure becomes weighed down with numerous challenges, Nicolas Cage seems nearly moving convinced that this murky, grim feature is deserving of his effort.

The Actor's Recent Film Selections

Nicolas Cage was spending those years more judiciously lately. He continues to stars in more films than most average viewers could possibly view — for example, are you aware that the actor has made a trio of different Westerns in the past three years? — yet he also mixes in esteemed independent films such as one recent hit, another notable movie, and Longlegs. The Carpenter’s Son seems like a similar project, in that it’s borderline horror, potentially provocative, and approaches a over-the-top premise in a earnest manner.

Movie's Storyline and Execution

Unfortunately, writer-director Lotfy Nathan fails to repay the audience's focus. The film opens in a compellingly nomadic setting, marketed as drawing from an obscure religious text regarding the early years of Jesus. Cage's character, the maternal figure, and their son travel from place to place, anxious of faith-based hostility or doubt over their son's unusual abilities. “Disaster trails us,” Cage gloomily remarks. That continues when dark forces focus on the household in their latest settlement, initiating on that familiar Biblical temptation for the youth.

At times, this production echoes an Exorcist-style supernatural thriller, except that not one of the lead characters are explicitly taken over. On the contrary, they are more and more distant mutually, while these forces infect a resident female (the actress, listed as an outsider) that The Boy bonds with, and provides everyone unsettling premonitions of a dark tomorrow. Cage's role especially struggles with his role in the narrative, sometimes berating the boy he can’t fully understand.

Debate and Caution

The subject matter is prone to court controversy, and the director treats it with a lot of delicacy — too much, maybe. The concept of a teenage boy dealing with his eventual sacrifice and lured by unknown powers is indeed terrifying, but Nathan may be wary of seeming gratuitous and eager to indicate his aims, so he often falls back on gloomily threatening cinematography. Characters constantly ponder — the singer-actress, who showed real promise in another movie, surprisingly — cedes her role to her religious attire, sometimes broken up by some gnarly horror imagery.

Cage's Performance and Movie's Shortcomings

Meanwhile, the actor flirts with exactly the kind of exaggerated performance that his ironic fans may desire. There is a moment (shown) in previews in which Cage erupts and shouts “My faith has been shattered!” Should such of florid outburst is included in a Jesus-themed horror movie, perhaps a more boldly ridiculous style would make better use of Cage’s willingness to be extreme if needed. Instead, the film echoes the less successful low-budget films the actor filmed through much of the 2010s — not the cheesy thrillers so much as the narrative films and paranormal movies that typically appear interesting, and often contain some select memorable scenes, but finally come across like, indeed, inexpensive direct-to-consumer content.

Truthfully, some of those, though not as grand, were easier to view overall. Here is where I have to violate my personal rule, not spiritual but professional: Long ago, a respected mentor convinced me to eliminate adjectives like “tedious” or “uninteresting” from my reviewing language. These phrases convey little except a individual and vaguely expressed impatience, avoiding the task of clearly expressing the intellectual and feeling of viewing a specific film. It’s difficult to convey tedium without appearing dull personally. It’s no more expressive as calling a movie “interesting.” “Elaborate,” essentially.

Yet, I acknowledge, I grew weary for a large part of the film. In its defense, it’s a devotional type of boredom, not because this movie is moralizing, but as it demands a sort of patient acceptance to view it. After a while early on, the movie locks into a repetitive rhythm of simmering anguish, and never really