Nicolas Cage is likely the ideal choice for a audacious horror film centered on the biblical figure, but not for the causes some fans may think. In reality, Cage does not even portray the central religious figure in the new film: the part he plays is referred to merely as The Carpenter. Cage is cast as a father figure of this narrative, striving to keep his beliefs while The Boy (played by Noah Jupe), his adolescent foster child, begins to show divine powers. Why it’s difficult to imagine a different prominent performer in this role is that although his character is weighed down with multiple difficulties, the actor seems nearly touchingly convinced that this dark, somber little movie is worth his time.
The Actor's Latest Film Selections
Nicolas Cage has spending those years more judiciously recently. He continues to does more films than the majority of average viewers will ever see — for instance, were you informed that the man has filmed a trio of separate Westerns recently? — but he also adds prestige A24/Neon gigs like one recent hit, another notable movie, and Longlegs. This new film sounds like one of those, as it’s not strictly scary, likely to stir debate, and takes a campy-sounding premise with gravity.
Movie's Premise and Execution
Regrettably, writer-director the director does not justify that serious attention. The Carpenter’s Son starts from a compellingly nomadic place, presented as based on an obscure religious text regarding the youthful days of the messiah. Cage's character, the maternal figure, and the boy move from place to place, afraid of doctrinal intolerance or doubt about their son's mysterious gifts. “Disaster trails us,” Cage sadly observes. This persists when dark forces focus on the household at their new home, getting a jump-start on that well-known scriptural test for the youth.
At times, this production resembles an demonic possession-type supernatural thriller, except that none of the main figures are explicitly taken over. On the contrary, they are more and more distant mutually, while these powers affect a resident female (Isla Johnston, listed as “The Stranger”) who the son connects to, and presents each character troubling visions of a dark tomorrow. Cage's role notably grapples with his position within the plot, at times scolding the boy he doesn't completely grasp.
Discussion and Sensitivity
The content is likely to stir disagreement, and Nathan treats it with much sensitivity — too much, perhaps. The idea of a young man facing his destined offering and seduced by unknown powers is indeed frightening, but Nathan might be hesitant regarding appearing sensational and eager to signal his intentions, thus he frequently falls back on dimly foreboding filming. The figures constantly ponder — the singer-actress, who demonstrated real promise in a recent film update, interestingly — surrenders her performance to her character's costume, occasionally interrupted by a few disturbing frightening scenes.
The Star's Portrayal and Film's Flaws
At the same time, Cage toy with precisely the type of overacting that his more snickering appreciators might be looking for. There is a moment (shown) in promotional material in which he loses control and yells “My faith has been shattered!” If that kind of florid outburst is included in a biblical thriller, possibly a more openly absurd approach would take better advantage of Cage’s willingness to go over the top when necessary. Instead, the film echoes the poorer straight-to-DVD movies Cage made over the 2010s — apart from the B-movies so much as the narrative films and ghost stories that often seem intriguing, and usually have some select Cage moments, but ultimately feel like, well, cheap home video fare.
Honestly, a number of those, although simpler, were more watchable as a whole. This is when I need to disregard my personal rule, not faith-based but work-oriented: Years back, a beloved editor convinced me to remove descriptive terms like “tedious” or “uninteresting” from my film-criticism vocabulary. Such terms convey little other than a subjective and generically described impatience, avoiding the job of vibrantly communicating the mental and sensation of viewing a particular movie. It's challenging to convey boredom without appearing dull yourself. It's equally vague as labeling a movie “notable.” “Explain further,” essentially.
Yet, I acknowledge, I was bored during much of The Carpenter’s Son. To the movie’s non-exploitative credit, it’s a religious style of stultification, not due to The Carpenter’s Son is lecturing, but because it requires a sort of obedient endurance to watch it. Eventually soon after starting, the film locks into a monotonous pattern of ongoing suffering, and never really
