🔗 Share this article

Nicolas Cage is likely the perfect selection for a bold horror film centered on the biblical figure, however not for the reasons certain fans may think. Actually, the star does not actually play Jesus in the new film: his role is listed merely as The Carpenter. Cage is framed as a father figure in this narrative, working to keep his religious convictions as The Boy (played by Noah Jupe), his now-teenage adopted son, starts to exhibit supernatural abilities. The explanation it’s difficult to envision any other leading star taking this character is that although his character becomes burdened with numerous challenges, the actor looks practically emotionally convinced that this dark, bleak feature is deserving of his effort.

Cage's Current Career Choices

Cage was allocating those years more judiciously recently. He still makes more films than the majority of regular audiences could possibly view — for instance, did you know that he has made several separate Westerns in the past three years? — yet he also mixes in high-profile A24/Neon gigs for example one recent hit, Pig, and a further title. This new film seems like one of those, because it’s genre-adjacent, potentially provocative, and takes a campy-sounding description with gravity.

The Film's Plot and Direction

Regrettably, writer-director the director does not justify that serious attention. The Carpenter’s Son begins with a engagingly rootless place, marketed as inspired by an obscure religious text concerning Christ’s childhood. The Carpenter, the maternal figure, and the boy move frequently, anxious of faith-based hostility or suspicion over their son's mysterious gifts. “Trouble pursues us,” Cage gloomily remarks. This persists when evil influences focus on them at their new home, beginning with that familiar Biblical temptation for the youth.

Sometimes, the film echoes an demonic possession-type supernatural thriller, though none of the lead characters are directly possessed. Rather, they are increasingly alienated from one another, while these powers affect a local young woman (the actress, credited as an outsider) who the son forms a relationship with, and provides each character disturbing images of a bleak destiny. The Carpenter especially struggles with his position in this story, at times berating the son he doesn't completely grasp.

Debate and Care

The content is prone to stir disagreement, and Nathan handles it with much delicacy — excessive, perhaps. The notion of a adolescent facing his eventual sacrifice and lured by dark influences is indeed frightening, but the filmmaker could be cautious about looking exploitative and keen to indicate his intentions, therefore he regularly retreats into dimly foreboding cinematography. The figures continually reflect — FKA Twigs, who displayed notable talent in the 2024 Crow remake, interestingly — cedes her acting to her Mother Mary cloak, at times punctuated by some gnarly horror imagery.

Cage's Performance and Film's Weaknesses

Meanwhile, Cage toy with exactly the kind of overacting that his more snickering appreciators might be looking for. One scene (shown) in previews where he loses control and shouts “My faith has been shattered!” If that kind of florid outburst is part of a biblical thriller, possibly a more brazenly silly style would take better advantage of his eagerness to go over the top if needed. Instead, The Carpenter’s Son more closely resembles the weaker straight-to-DVD productions Cage made through much of the last decade — excluding the campy action films but rather the narrative films and ghost stories that typically appear interesting, and often contain several notable Cage moments, but finally come across like, frankly, low-budget DTV material.

Frankly, some of those, though not as grand, were more entertaining as a whole. This is when I need to violate my personal rule, not spiritual but professional: Years back, an admired senior urged me to banish words like “monotonous” or “lifeless” from my reviewing language. These words convey little except a personal and broadly stated restlessness, disengaging from the duty of clearly expressing the mental and emotional experience of seeing a specific film. It's challenging to express monotony without seeming uninteresting yourself. It’s no more expressive as terming a movie “engaging.” “Say more,” that is.

Yet, I acknowledge, I was bored for a large part of the film. To the movie’s non-exploitative credit, it is a churchy kind of boredom, not because this movie is lecturing, but as it requires a type of obedient endurance to sit through it. At some point early on, the movie locks into a cyclic tempo of simmering anguish, and never really