🔗 Share this article

The acclaimed actor could be the ideal choice for a audacious scary movie about Jesus Christ, but not for the reasons some viewers could guess. In reality, the star doesn't actually play the central religious figure in The Carpenter’s Son: his role is referred to simply as a craftsman. The actor is positioned as a father figure of this narrative, working to maintain his beliefs while the teenage character (acted by Noah Jupe), his adolescent foster child, starts to display miraculous gifts. Why it’s difficult to picture another leading star taking this character is that even as his character becomes burdened with numerous difficulties, Nicolas Cage seems practically touchingly confident that this gloomy, bleak little movie is a valuable project.

Cage's Latest Career Choices

Nicolas Cage has spending his time more carefully recently. He still makes more films than the majority of average viewers will ever see — for example, are you aware that the man has filmed a trio of separate Westerns in the past three years? — but he also includes prestige critically acclaimed roles for example one recent hit, another notable movie, and Longlegs. The Carpenter’s Son seems like a similar project, because it’s not strictly scary, potentially provocative, and approaches a over-the-top description quite seriously.

The Film's Storyline and Direction

Unfortunately, filmmaker the director fails to repay viewer engagement. The film starts from a interestingly wandering setting, marketed as drawing from an apocryphal lost gospel about Christ’s childhood. The Carpenter, the maternal figure, and their son travel frequently, fearful of doctrinal intolerance or distrust about The Boy’s mysterious gifts. “Trouble pursues us,” Cage mournfully notes. This persists when sinister entities target the family where they currently live, initiating on the traditional religious challenge for The Boy.

Sometimes, the film resembles an demonic possession-type supernatural thriller, though not one of the main figures are explicitly taken over. Instead, they are more and more distant from one another, as these entities influence a local young woman (Isla Johnston, credited as an outsider) that the son connects to, and gives everyone troubling visions of a bleak destiny. Cage's role notably fights with his place within the plot, occasionally scolding the son he doesn't completely grasp.

Controversy and Sensitivity

This material is likely to invite debate, and Nathan treats it with much sensitivity — too much, perhaps. The concept of a teenage boy confronted with his eventual sacrifice and tempted by mysterious forces is indeed scary, but the filmmaker may be cautious about looking exploitative and eager to signal his intentions, therefore he regularly withdraws to darkly ominous filming. The figures constantly ponder — FKA Twigs, who displayed real promise in the 2024 Crow remake, of all things — yields her performance to her religious attire, occasionally interrupted by a few gruesome scary visuals.

The Star's Performance and Movie's Shortcomings

At the same time, Cage dabbles in precisely the type of exaggerated performance that his more snickering appreciators could be expecting. One scene (also included) in promotional material in which he erupts and yells “My belief is broken!” If that kind of dramatic explosion is a component of a biblical thriller, perhaps a more brazenly silly method would take better advantage of his eagerness to exaggerate when necessary. Rather, The Carpenter’s Son more closely resembles the less successful direct-to-video films the actor filmed over that period — not the cheesy thrillers instead the dramas and supernatural thrillers that typically appear interesting, and usually have a few choice actor's highlights, but finally come across like, well, cheap home video fare.

Frankly, several of these, though not as grand, were more watchable overall. Here is where I have to break my usual practice, not spiritual but professional: Long ago, an admired senior convinced me to eliminate descriptive terms like “boring” or “dull” from my film-criticism vocabulary. These phrases communicate minimal other than a individual and broadly stated impatience, withdrawing from the job of vividly conveying the intellectual and emotional experience of seeing a specific film. It’s difficult to express tedium without appearing dull personally. It’s no more expressive as calling a movie “interesting.” “Explain further,” in other words.

Yet, I acknowledge, I felt uninterested during much of the film. On the positive side, it’s a devotional type of dullness, not because this movie is moralizing, but since it takes a kind of dutiful submission to watch it. Eventually in the beginning, the movie settles into a cyclic tempo of simmering anguish, and never really