Deixados para Trás

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.

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.

Christians give it a 10 and Christian haters give it a 0. Surprise, surprise! Can't we all just get along? Seriously, why can't anyone think any way other than "I'm a Christian and it is about Christ so it gets a 10" or "I don't like Christians so I have to give it a 0"?

The effects aren't great. They are on par with a USA original movie or a lower budget TV movie. But hey, Star Trek (Original) is much better than Next Generation so effects don't really matter unless all you want is eye candy (i.e. people that would never ever read a book). My wife read the books and begged me to watch the movie. I was raised a Christian but I am not really sure what I believe now, and I thought it was an ok movie. At least a 5 or 6. All of you Christians and Christian haters are no different. You are both prejudice against the other group. Grow up! I thought the story was a little better than average (6.5) and the acting & producing was average (4.5). I feel the story is the most important thing so I gave the movie a 6.0.

Leaving the sub-par acting and middling directing aside, this adaptation of the first book of an extremely interesting series, leaves me amazed at just how low you can go. First of all, continuity and credibility should be enforced no matter how low the budget. Second, this roommate who has yet to read the book, was shocked and appalled at the sheer idiocy displayed in this movie. The roommate who has read the books was on the floor groaning from pain induced by watching a book she enjoyed immensely, be transformed into the equivalent of a "C" class movie. Thirdly, if you are going to adapt a book into a screenplay, you should at least attempt to get the details right. Finally, if you can't even convey the message of the book, without it coming across as cheesy and tactless, then perhaps it should just be left in print.

It was an entertaining movie, well worth viewing. The Biblical parts didn't exactly correspond with my Bible, but the movie does make one think about the end of time. I enjoyed the first 15 minutes and the last 15 minutes. The inbetween stuff just didn't cut it movie-wise. I'm hard on all movies. The anti-christ character (actor) at the end was riveting. Kirk Cameron did a great job of acting. He was a believable character. The end of the movie was not an end. I like movies to have a finish. This one didn't. It leaves a lot to be imagined, but the directors should have ended it better. Seems they were doing or planning the sequel. I wish they would have told me that before I invested my time. All in all, a good movie.