A Thief in the Night

Why is it that so many people find this film scary and inappropriate for children to watch, claiming that it has a negative impact on their young developing minds, Yet these same people will allow the same children to watch gory horror movies such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween and Friday the 13th which by far are more impressionable on the young developing minds than "A Thief in the Night". They also allow them to play video games that teach them its okay to drive around and run over people for points and to kill and this doesn't have a negative impact on that same mind? Talk about your double standard...your very own comments tell us the true state of your hearts.

This movie script as well as its sister movies are well thought out Biblically and follow closely along the event spoken of in the Bible. They tell a truth that is closer today than it ever was in the 70's. As for the "cheesy acting" as your call it, I think you will find the same quality in any and all low budget films of that day...and, one must also remember that those in these films were probably not trained actors but people who knew the Lord and were willing to be used for the good of His Kingdom.

Perhaps instead of worrying about the quality of these movies you should be worried about the wellbeing of your Eternal soul (the objective of these movies) because like it or not according to 2 Peter 3:10 the Lord will return as "A thief in the night"

This film follows the belief of certain fundamentalist Christians that an event known as the "rapture" will take place soon which will cause all true believers to disappear from the earth all at once. In that regard, "Patty Myers" (Patty Dunning) is one of the many who is not taken up into heaven because she is not a Christian. However, her husband, "Jim Wright" (Mike Niday) was recently converted and he has disappeared. So has her friend, "Jenny" (Colleen Niday). On the other hand, her other two friends, "Diane Bradford" (Maryann Rachford) and her new husband "Jerry Bradford" (Thom Rachford) were also left behind and like Patty, they are now forced to deal with another fundamentalist event known as the "tribulation" which is essentially a hell on earth. Now, as I stated earlier, this film follows a controversial belief of a certain segment of the Christian faith. As such, there may be many people who may not understand or appreciate this type of film. Likewise, it is a low-budget production geared more for an evangelical outreach than for general entertainment purposes. Because of that, the acting is very basic and the dialogue will probably strike many as being a bit corny. Additionally, as the hairstyles and clothes clearly indicate, it is definitely dated to a time-period (late 60's & early 70's) which may not appeal to a more modern audience. Even so, this film created a stir within its targeted audience and resulted in 3 sequels: "A Distant Thunder", "Image of the Beast" and "The Prodigal Planet". In short, if a person can get beyond some of the peculiarities I mentioned earlier, they might find this film interesting in its own way. And while I am able to keep an open mind about the overall subject of the film, from a critical and objective perspective I have to rate it as slightly below average.

Written and acted by sincere amateurs, produced by some exploitation monger, this is dull and hard to watch.

Not the worst movie ever, but at least schlock like _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ usually had a real actor or two. I'd recommend _A Thief In The Night_ only to hardcore ironists and hardcore Dispensationalists. I'm neither.

Don't believe me? Watch it for free (albeit sourced from poor VHS) here: http://www.archive.org/details/Thief-In-The-Night

Relevant links added mostly to reach IMDb's 10-line minimum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3199/thief-in-the-night-se-a/

I'm truly embarrassed to admit that I suffered through this film four or five times, while growing up in a Baptist church and attending a WASPish Protestant elementary school. One of the most abhorrent motion pictures ever made (second only to Lamont Johnson's reprehensible "Lipstick" back in 1976), "A Thief in the Night" has -- sadly -- become a Bible belt staple -- one of the only "Evangelical Christian cult films." How wildly popular is it among conservative Christians? Let's put it this way: one could walk into any "film night" at a midwestern Baptist church during the eighties and nineties and catch this motion picture, nine times out of ten (until John Schmidt took over by making a series of contemporary Christian films that actually remain watchable to this day -- "The Wait of the World" (1989), etc.)

I fail to understand how anyone could even -sit through- "A Thief in the Night" (let alone heap unqualified praise onto the film). Not only are the production values, the direction, the 'performances,' the script, the music, and the editing ludicrous, but one can imagine the film feeling dated even back in 1972. (The characters seem to be walking around on another planet).

As other IMDB users imply in their critiques, it might be possible for a film of this nature to evolve into a secular cult item -- a joke, to be screened as a secular midnight movie and at 70's cinematic shlock fests, ala "Toomorrow," the mysterious and elusive "Darktown Strutters," and "BJ Lang Presents." Ahh, such is not the case. The "filmmakers" rendered this impossible by dampering "A Thief in the Night" with some of the sourest, most depressing dramatic overtones in movie history and ensuring that it can never (NEVER) be *enjoyed* as entertaining camp. From first frame to last, it remains repulsively gloomy, angry, and depressing. This, from a film about Christ's second coming -- a subject which should impart a message of hope, not of fear.

In short: nothing fun about this one, folks. It's a *miserable* experience, and it may even fall into the same category as "The Incredible Torture Show," about which, Danny Peary once wrote, "If any film deserves to be banned, this deserves strong consideration."

The worst sidelight of the film: the terrible light it continues to shed on conservative Christians, and on the Revelation of St. John per se. "Left Behind" (1999), starring Kirk Cameron and based on the bestselling book series (a film I have not seen), covers the same ground and is evidently far more watchable.

This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.

Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.

This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time.

Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe.