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"

I ran across "A Thief in the Night" while scanning Prime Video looking for something to watch in bed one evening. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I ended up watching all four films in the series over the next few nights just because they were so incredibly bad that it was entertaining in a sad sort of way.

First, the theology. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, so the beliefs expressed weren't new to me. My mother really got into "The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey when it came out in 1970, making this view of eschatology all the more familiar in our house. As a kid, it scared and traumatized me. I grew up believing there was no point in planning for college, a career or family of my own because I didn't expect the world to be around for that long -- or at least not a world that would be fit to live in if I were unlucky enough to be left behind (to borrow the title of a future book and film series on the subject).

But today, 50-plus years later, I'm still here. I've been married 42 years, have grown children and grandchildren, and have retired from a 45-year career. And the world goes on. So if the events outlined in these movies (made between 1973 and 1983) have any validity at all, Jesus at the least apparently decided to tarry much longer than I was led to believe when I was a kid being told this stuff. However, I think it's much closer to the truth to say it isn't simply a matter of tarrying (a favorite word of the preachers I heard as a kid) but of this end times scenario being fictitious to begin with. I now see it as nothing more than a wildly off-the-mark misinterpretation of some very symbolic language never intended to be taken in the literal way this scenario takes it (which, of course, is what those who believe this way would expect heathens to say). This is a fanciful story (complete with elaborate charts and timelines, as depicted in the four films) designed to scare people into faith. And I now realize, as an adult, that true faith never works that way. It isn't possible scare anyone into authentic belief; that's something that has to come from the heart.

So, in a nutshell, it's a series built around a fantasy, as surely as "The Lord of the Rings" or "Game of Thrones." One is about as believable as the others. The world ends on a daily basis for people everywhere -- it's called dying -- and it will perhaps end once and for all someday for all of mankind. But I don't expect it to be in the slow, methodical horror show way depicted in these movies, nor do I expect it to be in the near future. I expect my grandchildren to have a future the same as I did, filled with both good and bad.

Secondly, as far as the acting and production values, they're about as bad as it gets. In all fairness, I'm sure the makers of these films weren't aiming for high production values and an appeal to a commercial market. No doubt, these were intended more as evangelism tools within churches. Fair enough. Still, it's really bad. The acting and dialogue are what one would expect from a entry-level acting class, if that. And the lighting and effects, even for the 1970's, is pretty dismal.

In short, if you're the kind of person who finds entertainment value in the truly awful, these films are worth trying. But that would be the only reason to watch, as I admittedly did. As a kid, they would have scared the living daylights out of me. Now, I can appreciate them, in a perverse way, for what they are.

My mother used to make us watch this movie and movies from this series every New Year's Eve when we were small kids (maybe 5). To say that this movie traumatized me as a 5 year old is an understatement. I couldn't stop thinking about it and talked about it so much that even my friends who had not seen it were terrified. I had nightmares for at least 15 years and I think that making children see these movies is child abuse. I still dread New Years Day because of this and although I know this was just a movie, I still have a sense of dread for the future that I've never been able to shake. If I were not brought up to think that this was true and had this shoved down my throat, I wouldn't found the bad acting and ridiculous plot entertaining, but being told at 5 that this is what is going to happen to you can cause lifelong trauma.

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 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.