A Thief in the Night

Since I am a Christian believer and that includes believing in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and that He is my Personal Savior and Lord due to His Sacrifice at the Cross and coming back to Eternal Life after being raised from the dead as well as believing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - what can I really say about this particular film?

I think the film has a powerful message, even though I have mixed feelings about its delivery. I think people should be converted through the knowledge of the free gift of Salvation provided by the Sacrifice at the Cross and Christ's subsequent resurrection. I have mixed feelings about the concept of "being scared into Heaven". But perhaps some people need to be. The idea that evil [Antichrist] can just take over the entire world after the Christian believers have been removed from the earth is scary indeed. In the past, evil has taken over entire nations such as in the Roman Empire, Napoleon's France, Hitler's Germany, and Soviet Russia. Evil continues to inflict nations in different parts of the world. Thinking about this on a worldwide scale is disturbing.

The First Coming of Christ is prophesied in several Old Testament Books. In the Book of Micah, it says that the Messiah [Jesus] will be born in Bethlehem. In another example, the Book of Daniel talks about "49 years plus 434 years" which are 483 years from the time of the Persian Empire in which the Jewish exiles were allowed back to rebuild the City of Jerusalem. Theoretically, this time reckoning brings us up to the week in which the Messiah Jesus was crucified (around 32 or 33 AD). And this is based on writings made centuries before the fact !!

The Second Coming of Christ is also described in both the New and Old Testaments such as in the Book of Revelation and in the Book of Daniel. In the last part of the Book of Daniel, to paraphrase scripture, it describes a great time interval passing until "knowledge [education] and travel have increased", perhaps describing the centuries between the times described in the Book of Daniel up though our 21st century, and perhaps beyond. After this has transpired, to paraphrase again, "the Angel Michael stands up to fight against satanic forces and the dead are risen, some to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt". There appear to be double references in the Book of Daniel describing events about Antiochus (the Greek "Antichrist" who desecrated the Hebrew Temple) during the second century B.C. , once again, centuries before the fact, and a catastrophe [world war?] yet future to our times (the Antichrist mentioned in the film). Yet, the Bible refers to the details of these events to be sealed knowledge until the time of the end. This great time interval mentioned above could possibly correspond in part to Church History as we have known it as well as to the rise of the modern nations as we know them today. Now, Church History is approximately 2,000 years old. The question that we have is how much longer this time period will continue prior to the Second Coming of Christ. As mentioned above, the answer to this question according to the Bible remains sealed.

Once again, the writer suggests, much of this knowledge is sealed up until the time of the end "when education and travel have increased". However, historically, more knowledge has become available over the past century and a half than all of the past nineteen centuries put together. This is particularly true of scientific knowledge. Other signs that theologians talk about is the resurrection of the state of Israel and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East which appears to resemble some of the situations described in the Old Testament such as in the Book of Daniel. Whether or not we have reached the real time of the end (such as within our lifetimes) remains unknown. Why ? The Bible says this knowledge is sealed until the time of the end. There are some details that remain hidden from us about the Second Coming of Christ. Even Jesus said that He did not know, to paraphrase, " nor the Angels in Heaven, but the Father only ".

What this means is that we should continue to anticipate the Return of Christ while doing the Christian walk in our daily lives.

Speculation about the Second Coming of Christ goes back centuries.

Much of this speculation has caused a great deal of tragedy and misunderstanding, especially in the dangerous practice of date-setting. Again, one must emphasize that even Jesus did not know when He is coming back, but only the Father knows. In addition, one must be especially careful about the danger of "adding or subtracting" from the Bible. The Book of Revelation in the last chapter gives a very stern warning about tampering with God's Word.

However, just like one can tell by changes in the weather that spring is coming, one can tell from world events that human history seems to be coming to some sort of climax. Precise knowledge of whether this is really so or not remains sealed, though, as the Bible says. This is where Faith comes in.

The term "Rapture" does not appear in the Bible, but its concept is hinted at in the First Book of Corinthians in which, to paraphrase St. Paul,"he tells us a secret - we will all not die, but in the twinkling of an eye, we will all be changed into new bodies". Furthermore, in the first Book of Thessalonians, the Lord will come "like a thief in the night (sound familiar?) in which believers who have died will be raised and those believers that are still living will all meet the Lord in the air". There are different interpretations of these passages, especially in terms of sequence of events, but this is where the concept of the Rapture comes from in the movie.

Films such as this raise a certain amount of controversy about interpreting the Bible, but that is the point. It is supposed to make a person think.

If the Old Testament turned out to be accurate about the predictions about the First Coming of Christ, it stands to reason that the New Testament (as well as the Old) is accurate as well about His Life on earth as well as His eventual future return.

Blessings in Christ to everyone,

Dan Basinger

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 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.

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.