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.

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.

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.

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.