Prima dell'apocalisse

I'm a Christian who generally believes in the theology taught in Left Behind. That being said, I think Left Behind is one of the worst films I've seen in some time.

To have a good movie, you need to have a well-written screenplay. Left Behind fell woefully short on this. For one thing, it radically deviates from the book. Sometimes this is done to condense a 400-page novel down to a two-hour film, but in this film I saw changes that made no sense whatsoever.

Another thing, there is zero character development. When characters in the story get saved (I won't say who), the book makes it clear that it's a long, soul-searching process. In the film it's quick and artificial. The book is written decently enough where people like Rayford Steele, Buck Williams and Hattie Durham seem real, but in the movie scenarios are consistently given the quick treatment without anything substantial. In another scene where one character gets angry about being left behind (again, I won't say who), it seems artificial.

I realize as a Christian it's unedifying for me to say I disliked this film, but I can't in a good conscience recommend a film that I feel was horribly done. Perhaps it would've been better to make the first book into 2-3 films. Either way, Christians need to realize that to be taken seriously as filmmakers, we need to start by putting together a film in a quality way. I realize a lot of effort probably went into Left Behind, but that's the way I see it.

I picked up Left Behind for no other reason than it was in the new release section (that's Australia for you), and it looked as if it might be worth watching.

In my opinion, I wasted my money. And considering that I used a free coupon to rent it, that's saying something.

However, I must point out that I'm not objecting to the Biblical content. Viewed simply as a fictional text, there's nothing wrong with the Bible; this is a fictional movie, so I don't have a problem per se with the content (although IMHO it makes it more fantasy than science fiction).

No, the problem with Left Behind is just that the movie totally fails to excite. The plot dawdles along at a painful pace for far too long, and even I figured out the Rapture part about ten minutes into it (I didn't initially believe that they would try and use that as the REAL explanation, but I wasn't exactly shocked when they did).

The story is not internally self consistent. We're told about a world wide hunger problem, but we're never shown this (all of the cast seem well fed, for example). We're expected to believe that the population of the planet buys the idea that some mysterious form of radiation has selectively wiped out millions of people in a wide spread area with no particular pattern (they wouldn't, especially considering that some of the world's top scientists are unlikely to have been "chosen"). Basically, given the situation at the START of the movie we should see a very different society - one on the edge of survival, with martial law and even open warfare (and we don't; America looks pretty much the same as it always does in Hollywood). AFTER the rapture, it should be even worse - and yes, we see a few signs that things are breaking down, but it's still largely business as usual.

Finally, the story doesn't have an ending. Apparently there's a sequel, but that doesn't excuse the lack of a finale in this movie. To all intents and purposes, they figure out what's going on and then ... it ends. No confrontation. No pay-off. Just the main character finally realising the truth of what the viewer noticed hours ago.

I've certainly seen worse movies, of course, but if you happen to see a copy of this on the store shelves, even at weekly prices... you would do best to simply let it remain Left Behind.

It's been a while since seeing this the first time, so I watched it again with the second movie in the series. While I realize there is a 3rd movie out that I haven't seen yet, I'll review under the original title...

Just from the standpoint of production value, screen writing, and movie making, this movie fails on many levels, though it succeeds on a few as well. What can you expect from a low-budget, "B" movie? Not much, and it works from the standpoint of production. However, the writing is certainly disjointed, with little in the way of character development...exactly what I'd expect when there is an agenda to a film. I didn't have a problem with the acting...the cast is solid; however, the screenplay in both movies gives the actors little opportunity to really stretch themselves. Because the film is "Christian," this is predictable, as you can't very well portray violent chaos of the "end times" without also breaking some of the ethics which are normally associated with Christianity. In other words, the mistake comes in making this into a G-rated film when the content, even in the most conservative of Bible interpretations, would be R-rated by any measure. So, if the purpose of the movie is to scare people into Christian faith, then the movie should be somewhat scary, right? However, you can't comment on a film adaptation from a book without commenting on the book, or in this case, series of books. There are certainly plenty of Christian materials worthy enough to be made into movies...but not the "Left Behind" series...and these movies ultimately fail because, while being best-sellers, they are poorly written novels based on bad theology.

As a Southern Baptist minister, I confess that the books were a guilty pleasure for me, though I have yet to finish the last two books of the series. I have described them as decent fiction, and if the books would take the point of view that this is one "possibility" or interpretation of the subject of biblical eschatology (study of the "end times), then I could live with that. However, this series is divisive in Christian circles because it promotes the "literalist" interpretation of all Scripture above a more proper hermeneutic. Inevitably, this leads to the "pre-trib, pre-millenial" dispensation point of view, which confines an all-powerful God far too by humanity's world. In other words, as I've always said, God shouldn't need our helicopters and bombs to do his ultimate work. But because many people, particularly unstudied Christians, can't think beyond their own world-views, we are left with a pro-conservative, fundamentalist stance with regard to Bible interpretation, and attempts to push it through as the "only" interpretation.

Thus, the books carry with them an agenda, not so much to get the "lost" to understand their need for Christ, but to state that the fundamentalist point of view is the only valid way to understand the Bible. I recall very clearly reading (several years ago) in the second novel a scene where the characters reference a person who was "left behind" BECAUSE of his non-adherence to this point of view; as if "real" christians worthy to be "raptured" couldn't possibly hold to another eschatology. This is disturbing for several reasons, the least of which is because a "rapture" is only briefly mentioned in Scripture and it's connection to real, end-time prophecy is tenuous at best.

But the real issue with these books is comes in the way they divide the Christian community and how they portray "true" Christian behavior. Ultimately, I feel they harden more people to an otherwise legitimate faith/religion instead of win people towards it. It turns all Christians into caricatures, equally disdained and laughed at by the world despite the fact that there is theological room for a wide diversity of believes within Christian thought and practice. As a Christian body, on the whole, we've done enough of that kind of damage to society over 2000 years of history...and we certainly don't need to promote it by film to thousands, maybe millions of others.

Thus, the "Left Behind" movies fail because the "Left Behind" books aren't worthy to be interpreted into movies.

It is easy to take potshots at this. It is absolutely horrible technically in every respect. And it is easy to imagine that the childish earnestness of those involved blinded them from critical vision -- or perhaps that no great art can come from a fundamentalist world. Who knows?

But there are other vapid movies out there too. What makes this (and 'Omega Code') so fascinating is that they were not intended to entertain, even to enlighten, but to proselytize. And some day soon this crowd will cease to be so amateurish -- down the street from me is Pat Roberstson's film 'university' with a virtual endowment of billions and the intent of being professionally slick. What then?

It is an interesting question. As it stands now, we have films that are made for profit. Most of these pander in some way. Then we have films that are made as art. Some of these pander as well. And we have propaganda films of various sorts whose purpose is purely to convince/convert/affirm. Of these, the latter are the only truly pornographic.

I think that as religious films become better and more common (they will), they become fair game for satire. Imagine a Scream about the apocalypse cults. Then instead of massive protests against a respectful film like 'Last Temptation' (shots were fired here!) what will we get? Imagine class war.

The film and the books behind it aren't very biblically accurate in any case. The rapture metaphor comes from Darius, who incidentally rebuilt the temple the first time, and invented modern Judaism as an experiment. Currency has been unified since then, 2500 years with only the names kept nationally. That's what is referenced in the B. Darius also revived Zoroastrianism which mixed with later Judaism to produce the essenism of John which Jesus adopted.

This in fact is not a film with Christian theology at all. They even fumbled that.

Great concept, fantastic book series, the movie could have been a LOT better.

Now, I realize that when a movie attempts to capture the essence of a book, there have to be some sacrifices as far as details. I have read the book several times, and the movie somehow does not capture much of what the book conveys. Maybe it is time constraints that come with making a movie within, say, 90 minutes to 2 hours. But this movie seems rushed somehow. It did not let certain plotlines develop. In the book, Rayford only lusted after the stewardess, where in the movie, it seemed like it went a bit beyond that. Also, early in the movie, it seemed that Buck Williams already had a relationship with the Steele Family before the Rapture where it did not germinate until towards the end of the Left Behind book.

Maybe it was because of the low budget and time constraints. I remember when Kirk Cameron was fired up about doing the movie after reading the book. The funny thing is that this movie was produced without paying any attention to the details that made this book such a best seller. The basic idea behind the novel held true to the movie, but many key elements in the book were ignored.

My advice: Read the novel series, see the movie if you must for comparison's sake, not as a viable substitute to the novel.