Left Behind

even though I liked the books better. I saw the movie a second time and liked it better than I did the first time.

I hope anyone who sees it who doesn't 'get it' or who feels that only fundamentalist christians can really understand it will just open their bibles. I had friends who saw X-Men and got me to read some of the comics saying I'd enjoy the movie more if I did. They were right. So why is it so terrible to say crack open your bible and check out the stuff?

Sometimes it really makes me laugh. If you wanted to become a lawyer you'd learn contract law, study the constitution and various cases before taking the bar. You wouldn't attempt to pass the bar exam by talking to friends about their opinions and watching "The Practice." But people who believe in God don't read His book. And admitting that you've "studied the bible," which, in the long run, will also make you more literate, is akin to saying you have a communicable disease; people stare at you and back away.

Open it up. Not only does it give guidelines on how to live, it gives you promises for what comes after. And if nothing else, it will give you a clue what this movie is all about.

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.

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 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.

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.