Nicolas Cage's Religious Horror Movie Is Less Extreme Than Expected

Nicolas Cage may be the optimal choice for a daring horror film focused on Jesus Christ, but not for the motivations some audiences may think. Truthfully, the star doesn't even play Jesus in the new film: the part he plays is listed merely as a craftsman. He is framed as a father figure in this story, attempting to keep his faith as his son (portrayed by Noah Jupe), their teenage adopted son, starts to display divine powers. The explanation it's hard to envision a different major actor playing this part is that even as the figure grows stricken with multiple difficulties, Cage himself seems nearly moving confident that the gloomy, bleak feature is deserving of his effort.

Cage's Recent Career Choices

Cage has using his time more selectively lately. He yet stars in additional projects than the majority of casual fans may ever watch — for example, were you informed that the actor has made a trio of separate frontier films over the last few years? — yet he also includes prestige critically acclaimed roles such as Dream Scenario, another notable movie, and a further title. The Carpenter’s Son seems like one of those, because it’s borderline horror, likely to stir debate, and approaches a exaggerated concept quite seriously.

The Film's Plot and Direction

Regrettably, writer-director the director does not justify that serious attention. The Carpenter’s Son opens in a interestingly wandering context, presented as inspired by an obscure religious text concerning Christ’s childhood. The Carpenter, The Mother, and the boy move constantly, anxious of doctrinal intolerance or doubt over their son's unusual abilities. “Disaster trails us,” Cage mournfully notes. That continues as dark forces focus on the household where they currently live, initiating on that familiar Biblical temptation for The Boy.

At times, this production echoes an Exorcist-style horror film, but no one of the central roles are directly possessed. On the contrary, they become increasingly alienated from one another, as these entities influence a local young woman (Isla Johnston, credited as “The Stranger”) that the son bonds with, and provides each character troubling visions of a bleak destiny. Cage's role in particular struggles with his place in this story, at times scolding the boy he doesn't completely grasp.

Debate and Care

The subject matter is apt to invite debate, and the director handles it with plenty of sensitivity — overly, possibly. The notion of a adolescent facing his eventual sacrifice and seduced by mysterious forces is indeed frightening, but Nathan could be hesitant regarding looking exploitative and anxious to telegraph his aims, thus he frequently falls back on dimly foreboding visuals. Characters continually reflect — FKA Twigs, who showed notable talent in a recent film update, surprisingly — cedes her role to her character's costume, occasionally interrupted by a few gruesome scary visuals.

The Star's Performance and Film's Shortcomings

Meanwhile, the actor flirts with exactly the kind of exaggerated performance that those who enjoy his campier roles may desire. An instance (shown) in promotional material where he flips out and screams “My belief is broken!” When this sort of theatrical release is part of your biblical thriller, possibly a more openly absurd style would make better use of Cage’s willingness to exaggerate when necessary. Instead, the film is closer to the less successful direct-to-video films the actor filmed through much of the last decade — not the cheesy thrillers but rather the serious stories and paranormal movies that often seem intriguing, and often contain several notable Cage moments, but ultimately feel like, frankly, low-budget DTV material.

Truthfully, a number of those, though not as grand, were more entertaining in general. This is when I must violate my personal rule, not spiritual but career-related: Long ago, an admired senior urged me to remove adjectives like “monotonous” or “lifeless” from my reviewing language. Such terms communicate minimal except a subjective and broadly stated restlessness, avoiding the task of vividly conveying the mental and sensation of watching a particular movie. It's hard to convey monotony without appearing dull oneself. It’s no more expressive as calling a movie “notable.” “Elaborate,” essentially.

However, I admit, I grew weary for a large part of the film. To the movie’s non-exploitative credit, it’s a religious style of stultification, not because this movie is lecturing, but because it takes a type of obedient endurance to sit through it. After a while soon after starting, this feature settles into a cyclic tempo of simmering anguish, and fails to