Left Behind: The Movie (2000) User Reviews

Had to see it...have to bash it!

[jballauer · 3/10 · 25 July 2007]

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.

a couple of hours will never get back!

[snucker · 3/10 · 10 December 2003]

*review may contain spoilers*

predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!

The Fantastic Four of Revelations

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 29 March 2006]

Let me say that I'm not talking about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the title. I'm talking about four people, Kirk Cameron, Brad Johnson, Clarence Gilyard, and Janaya Stephens who apparently out of all the people left on earth after the Rapture has occurred, have figured out who the anti-Christ is and what his intentions are.

There's a whole lot of theological debate out there as to whether the Rapture will even occur. But what that's supposed to be is at a given point all the true believing Christians and most of the children on this planet will all of a sudden vanish. What's happened is that God's taken them into heaven so they will avoid the coming events of the very last days on the planet.

For some reason these four have been Left Behind, but they've figured out what's going on. And the anti-Christ is none other than the Secretary-General of the United Nations. A guy named Karpathy who has a mittel-Europa accent popular in Hollywood films in the Thirties. The actor who plays him, Gordon Currie, does the best job in the film.

Brad Johnson and Janaya Stephens are father and daughter. His wife and son are among the raptured. Daughter is a rebellious college kid and Brad's been having an affair with stewardess Chelsea Noble. Brad's a pilot and he's heroic in a Jack Armstrong kind of way. Why a believing pastor like Clarence Gilyard's been left behind is a mystery to me, it surely isn't explained in the film. And Kirk Cameron just does not cut it as a cynical investigative reporter. Maybe I'm unfair, but I still see him as the kid from Growing Pains.

There's a problem with these kind of films as I see it besides the obvious one of that this is only one interpretation of what the last days will be like. Internationalism of any kind has always been an enemy to fundamentalism. The North American continent has NAFTA the European nations bind closer together from the Common Market up to the creation of the Euro Dollar, things like that are seen as evil.

Maybe I don't get it, but I always think that the more people talk the less likely they will fight. That's a good thing in my book. But if you think your belief system is the only true one in the world, you resist all forms of dialog. That's the logic behind this film and it's also the logic Al Queda operates with for their faith.

I've always thought that the Bible story that is the most insidious is the Tower of Babel. All people speaking a common language, working on a common goal even if it is to build a gigantic stratospheric tower. So God messes up languages to keep mankind forever apart. And as they come together, evil is supposed to happen.

I think the planet as a whole as more to fear from those left out as opposed to those left behind.

Fire the screenplay writers

[rpzowie · 2/10 · 24 April 2005]

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.

Well, from an atheist perspective, it's just a bad movie

[GAZZA666 · 4 December 2002]

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.

The End is Near...and there are no Kennels in Heaven

[RocketB52 · 1/10 · 30 December 2005]

Okay, now, I know there are millions of Americans who believe in The Rapture: that moment when all people born again in Christ will be raptured up to meet God and all the rest of humanity will be left on earth to perish in plagues and fire and the heartbreak of psoriasis as the Antichrist battles it out with Jesus (in an uncharacteristically warlike mode). And I know the books were best sellers. . .among believers, anyway. And I mean no disrespect to all that.

But I have to say, they stuffed this movie into a sack and beat it with the Suck Stick.

I'm sure the books are much better. Really.

The plot needs no reprising. If you've watched this movie, chances are you read the book. I may be one of the only people on earth who actually watched this just for the sheer bad-moving-making experience, and I wasn't disappointed. Especially not by Kirk Cameron, the creepy little "Growing Pains" gremlin, who came of age on that show, found Christ, and decided that the SHOW should reflect his Christian values. Well, Kirk, your career has gone to the dogs, but now you can be happy that you're spreading the word of God in movies so bad, they never even make it to theatrical release. Well, that's not strictly true: I guess this was the only movie ever made that went to DVD FIRST, with a voucher for a free viewing of the movie when it was briefly released in theaters! I still have the voucher! How many people do you suppose showed up? I don't know about you, but it never came to my town. Of course, I live in NYC, where we Godless liberals sit around tearing pages out of the bible and use them to roll joints. So there you go. In fact, I'll bet out of three million people on Manhattan Island, not one would be raptured.

Check out the supplementary materials on the DVD, where you'll learn the creepy behind the scenes details of these movies. . .the CAST and CREW all must be of the same religious mindset. They don't come right out and say this, but listen closely to what the filmmakers say. It's like a bunch of Pod People got together to make a Pod movie. How creepazoid is that? Honestly, this stuff just preaches to the converted, doesn't it? Can you imagine anyone who DOESN'T subscribe to the whole apocalypse thing watching this, slapping his forehead and saying, "HOLY HOOVER DAM! I better get saved PRONTO!" Anyhow, I'm hooked. I gotta see the rest of these Christian fiasco movies, especially the one with Gary Busey, which I think is TRIBULATIONS. At least Busey has an excuse for taking the part.. . .he cracked his head on some pavement when he crashed his motorcycle.

Oy.

Oh, and one more thing. What's with all the shots of poor,innocent dogs whimpering, their leashes dragging uselessly along the ground, because their owners have been called to heaven? What's up with that? Are we supposed to feel badly for the dogs, and if we do, what are we to make of God? Doesn't it IRK people that there's no room in heaven for man's best friend? Foo.

This is one more reason I'm agnostic. Good night and good luck.

A sermon you can skip

[bandw · 1/10 · 17 February 2001]

(Possible spoilers). Borrowing a line from Roger Ebert, I hated, hated, hated this movie. I have seen over 2000 movies in my life and I think I may rank this one dead last. No matter what category you choose, this movie is an inferior product.

The acting is below the quality of most TV dramas. Never once did I believe in the characters as people rather than as actors being put through their paces. There is one scene where a young woman hugs her father with the same emotion as if she were hugging a telephone pole. The acting is so wooden that one is inclined to avert his eyes.

The special effects were primitive, even by 1950 standards. I was hoping to be entertained by the science fiction aspects of this movie, but being disappointed understates my reaction. The main event of the story is the rapture - where all the "good" people are simultaneously taken to heaven by Jesus. In fact the good people do disappear about a quarter of the way into the film, but not once do we get to see an actual disappearance. We just see clothes left behind. I always thought the idea was that people's souls ascended to heaven while the body was left behind. But in this movie it appears that Jesus wants naked bodies in heaven. Big opportunities were missed by not allowing us to see the immediate effects of people being yanked off the planet - cars crashing, planes going down, dishes clattering to the floor, surgeries stopped in mid-stream, nuclear power plants going unmanned, dogs unleashed on their walks, and so forth. We see none of this actually happening. At best we get shots of the aftermath, like a multi-car accident, or passengers in a plane trying to figure out what happened. All the interesting stuff is left out and all we see is some obviously staged after effect shots. The only reasons I can think of for this are either a lack of imagination or a limited budget.

The music is unremarkable - some generic rock music (a transparent attempt to appeal to a younger audience) and a few swelling crescendos to accompany the "experiencing the awe of God" scenes.

But the worst thing about this movie is the horrendous screenplay. The script could have been written in a way to engage us in honest thought as to what constitutes a good life - the ultimate moral question. But, judging from the people who are taken in the rapture in this movie, it seems that the only good people are the devout Christians and children. This does not seem to me to be realistic. For one thing, based on my recollections of childhood, I recall an amazing number of acts of undisguised meanness. Should all children be given a free pass to heaven? And most of the people left behind seemed like pretty decent sorts to me - I would liked to have had more information as to just why they were left behind. We are given no first-hand knowledge of the people who were taken, so it is hard to compare their qualifications for being taken with those who are left behind. And one has to question the beneficence of a God who would, through an act of supposed kindness, cause such chaos and grief on earth - a loving mother ripped from her family, children taken, planes crashing, cars crashing, communication broken down, and so forth.

The ultimate message seems to be: turn to the Bible, family, and God. Is this message something we have never heard before? It is hard to know who this movie is aimed at. I guess for Christians the sermon delivered here is an affirmation of their faith, but for non-Christians this is a sermon they have endured ad nauseam.

Give your money to your favorite charity, don't give it in support of such worthless nonsense as "Left Behind."

If this commentary can save one person from seeing this movie, then the time I have spent writing it will not have been spent in vain.

SPOON FEEDING the audience

[undrgroundthug · 1/10 · 29 May 2006]

I am a Christian... and I feel this movie is awful.

Nobody but hard-core, Bible-belt Christians are going to like this movie. The message is just too in your face. If you want to touch a wider audience, you have to be way more subtle. You can't have the dad waving the bible around and carrying it with him in EVERY scene. RIDICULOUS!

Poor direction. The reveal of people missing should have been terrifying, but it was laughable. They leave their clothes on the ground? It reminded me of old Ed Wood movies: "Oh my God! People are missing!" That scene in the plane is just stupid. Think about it: if you found your relative's clothes next to you, you wouldn't just scream "oh my god. they disappeared! they're missing!" and start crying and yelling. You would first be in denial... you just wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Watch Jodie Foster in FLIGHTPLAN. My favorite shot is the dog sitting out on the lawn with a pile of clothes and boots sitting next to him. I about fell off the couch I was laughing so hard.

The music was so bad and so distracting. It was as if the composer was in his own world scoring his own movies. "here's my chance to do a thriller", "here's my chance to do action!" STOP TELLING ME HOW TO FEEL JAMES COVELL! A good score supports what's happening on the screen... this movie needed more of an UNDER score, but instead it was as much in your face as the message was.

The writing was bland. So was Captain Christian Kirk Cameron. Chelsea was the worse: "you don't understand! People are missing!". Brad Johnson was laughable. The two stand out performances came from the Anti-Christ and the older guy (sorry, can't remember their names) In watching the "making of" (to answer my question of "what were they thinking???"), the producers and filmmakers and actors are just deluding themselves... saying "we're gonna reach wide audiences" and "brad Johnson is amazing" and "this is just like a Hollywood movie". I came to the conclusion that they just don't know what the "heck" they are doing.

I commend the effort. Getting the message to a wide audience is a fantastic idea. Film is the best medium possible to do that. Look at movies like WIDE AWAKE, SIGNS, CONTACT, PASSION OF Christ, even O'BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? The bottom line is that the film needed to be made by people who have talent and vision. Unfortunately, it was not.

view it as a social/cultural document

[mmj2ca · 1/10 · 8 January 2001]

If you are wondering where many of the conspiracy theories and paranoid ideas about the the UN, Israel, and international affairs come from, look no further.

This isn't a supernatural Hollywood film loosely based on some biblical passage. Instead, this movie was made by a company (Cloud Ten Pictures) with a political and religious agenda. As a movie, the end result at times more looks like clips out of a televangelism program (complete with family prayers and light breaking through church windows while harps are playing).

For mainstream viewers, it may be hard to believe, but many people believe in this stuff literally, as presented in the movie. And that, perhaps, makes the movie important. You probably won't find a more concise exposition of the bizarre views of a significant number of your fellow citizens. So, if you view it, view it as a social/cultural document. If you are at all media savvy, you don't need to be warned about the unsubtle attempts at propaganda and manipulation in the movie.

Great attempt!

[misternashville · 7/10 · 24 October 2003]

For a first time shot at making a Christian film... these guys made a great attempt. Not the best quality acting but definitely a solid storyline and plot culmination. I read the books and the movie didn't live up to my expectations but.. considering the budgeting they had for this film I think they got what they paid for.

We'll see how the next one is!

God Awful Movie Based On A God Awful Book about a God Awful God

[rdp1986 · 1/10 · 6 May 2010]

Left behind is based on the first book of the popular bestselling series about the end of the world as told in the bible. When I first heard the words apocalypse, end times, good vs. evil and Anti-Christ my first thought were of books and films like the Omen or The stand by Steven King. What I got in the book was badly written fundamentalist fear based propaganda. The film is not much different from my experiences with the book.

The story stars Kirk Cameron (The kid from growing pains) as "tough" guy reporter Buck Williams and Brand Johnson as polite Rayford Steel who cheating on his overly Christian wife. It begins with Kirk reporting in Israel as the nation is about to be attacked by the Russians. The Russians? Some one's trapped in the cold war days. Anyway there reasons for waging war is for fertilizer. You read that right. They risk world war 3 for Fertilizer. Doom seem to be unavoidable as badly done CGI planes fly over the "holy" land but at the last seconded a strange force destroys all the planes. Killing all those men who dared anger God by joining the Russian air force. Then we moves into the to the true holy land. America! Ware we meet Brad Johnson character. His wife has become a born again Christian which seems to have caused trouble in the family. In the film they betray it as the family is having a hard time accepting what she has to preach (Believe me, there will be preaching in this film) but in real life it would more likely be along the lines that people cant stand having some one ells trying to enforce religion down our Throats.

She throwing there son a Christian themed birthday party, Poor kid, but that no good sinning non-believing father of there has to go to work and fly a plane. As he dose this he is having a little romance with the flight attendant. Non-right winged Christian Characters go on to be betrayed like this in the books and the films. The true believers in Christianity are betrayed as happy, good and moral. Those who do not are portrayed as immoral, unhappy, angry, or even naive.

He flys his plane that happens to have Kirk on it when half the passengers disappear only leaving behind there cloths. In one night all born again evangelical Christian who believed the bible is the literal truth and Jesus is the only way to heaven disappear along with all children under 12 years old. Planes with out pilots crash, cars with no drivers pile up on the streets causing a massive death toll to rise and parents mourn for the lost of there missing children. You think a loving God who cares for humanity would at least take people when they were not driving or flying anything that could get people killed! So thousands of people are killed in cars and plane crashs then sent to hell forever because they did not accept the God who just got them killed in the first place. As the story moves on our "heroes" discover that people were rapture in to heaven and now it's up to those who were left behind to convert the rest of the world to Christianity and battle the Anti-Christ.

Okay. One thing I usually cant stand in movies is when I am being preached at and Left behind the most preachy film I have ever seen in my life. Get prepared for endless lectures from the Characters about how great God and Jesus are, How the bible the only truth and that it some how not God's fault that people are going to the hell he made for not being Christian. All the born again Christian characters are uninteresting and charters who were more complexes become uninteresting the moment they convert to Jesus.

The acting and casting is just bad. I can't really get myself to believe that Kick Cameron is a big tough reporter. The guys still looks like the kid from Growing Pains. The movie is just the beginning of films that are all motivated to promote fear and some bigotry to those who don't buy into this particular brand of Christianity. Ideas promoted in left behind are the reason why we have problems in place like the mid-east to begin with. The simply message of love all as you love your self that Jesus taught is replace with a message that benefit mega churches and politicians.

To top it all off we can't even have decent acting, realistic characters and good special effects. Leave it to fundamentalist Christians to screw up there own end of the world movie.

That why I give this holy message a 1 out of 10

Great movie

[thisismyrealaccount101 · 10/10 · 21 June 2013]

I don't know why so many people thought this was a bad movie. Some of the "Christians" who have reviewed it seem to dislike the Christian imagery present in many of the scenes (but given the movie's subject, is anyone really surprised at how ubiquitous it is?), and such prominence may lead non-Christians to view the film in a light of detached skepticism, which diminishes any film's audience appeal. The characters' conversions to Christianity had the proper emotional impact, and while some might tire of basically hearing "God is the answer," to nearly every question the characters have post-rapture, you have to keep in mind that Christians really do believe that God can help you out of any problem.

The movie is very true to the book. While leaving out minor details, it includes many of the prominent aspects of the book's apocalyptic nature, giving it an air of realism. I encourage anyone who wants to see the movie to read the series to find the whole story.

So yes, you may have to come off your high horse of being "above" such a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible's apocalyptic prophecies to enjoy this movie. But in the end, your experience will depend on whether or not you are able to put any anti-Christian inhibitions behind you.

OK, but...

[rocknrelics · 6/10 · 21 August 2020]

I watched this having seen the Nicholas Cage version. I didn't find the Cage version too bad, certainly not as bad as some reviewers, and it piqued my interest in seeing the original.

Firstly, whilst it has elements of the later version, this has a much stronger storyline.

Having said that where this falls down is like the Cage version, it looks like a made for TV movie(maybe it was?), special effects are rudimentary, and the acting isn't that hot.

However the subject matter is interesting whether you're a believer or not, and the film doesn't get boring.

I bought it as part of a box set with the second and third films, and I'm looking forward to watching them, as I understand they're better than the first movie.

Unbelievably bad

[roedyg · 1/10 · 4 October 2007]

This has to be one of the silliest movies ever made. It is Christian propaganda mixed with cold war paranoia about Russians. The penultimate scene of the two murders and the evil villain convincing everyone to lie about them is utterly unbelievable on every level. Even the villain's accent was unbearably phony. It was like amateur theatre.

It made no sense. There were a dozen ways the evil villain could be foiled, and everyone just acquiesced, with hero cheerily assuring himself God would right it all.

It just left me going "Huh?". As if they had tacked the last reel of of Warner brothers cartoon on the end.

Beyond Offensive / Contains Spoilers

[Danusha_Goska · 6 January 2004]

Warning, this post contains spoilers. And, given the subject matter of the movie, that means that this post will tell you exactly how the world will end. Only keep reading if you are ready for that information.



The anti-Christ is a diabolical, inscrutable Slav -- named Carpathia, for bigotry's sake! "Carpathia" being the name of a region chock full of Slavs & where, before the Holocaust, many Jews lived -- and evil Carpathia is in cahoots with crafty Jews. Together they are gonna take over the world.

And no doubt many viewers are convinced that the Bible predicts all this.

A Jewish guy is shown with his seeds that make wheat grow in the desert. These seeds will give Nicolae Carpathia (major spoiler here), the anti-Christ, power over the world.

In the next scene, hundreds of warplanes are shown screaming out of Iraq toward Israel; similarly, hundreds of tanks are coursing across the Syrian border toward Israel. The World War Three we've all learned to fear is beginning. I found these scenes genuinely scary and depressing.

Then, of course, the Rapture. Millions of people (all believing Christians) disappear, and their befuddled survivors are "left behind" to cope as best they can.

The movie's exploitation of our fears about the Middle East as a flashpoint offended me. The movie is not saying, "Christianity is a satisfying and uplifting experience, that, in its own right, is worth taking up." No. The movie is delivering the same message as the six o'clock news:

<<The world is a scary place. You can't do anything that will change the world for the better -- cause this was all set down in the Bible thousands of years ago, right?

And anyone who speaks of world peace, feeding the poor, disarmement and the brotherhood of humanity, that is, human solutions to human problems, as Nicolae Carpathia does, (and, as Communists / Leftists / Socialists did) is in league with Satan. And anyone who does not accept Christ, as the Jewish character does not, supports Satan.

Your only option to avoid all these terrors is to literally absent yoruself from the rest of humanity, and join up with us.

Others -- those not like us -- are deluded tools at best, and satanic, at worst. Don't trust them. >>

Especially given many Christians' murder of Jews over the years, the exploitation of images of Jews as agency-less tools of Tim La Haye's end of the world scenario is just beyond offensive.

And, no, I'm not Jewish; I'm Catholic. One of those folks who believe this stuff think are going to hell.

Well, at least I'll be with the other Slavic people and Jews. Probably more interesting than being with Tim La Haye for all eternity.

Twaddle

[ghigau · 1/10 · 13 April 2002]

Bad twaddle, too. Canada should be ashamed of financing a film like this. We never even found out if any Chinese or Indians were "left behind." Pity the poor fools (Mr. T might say). The search for the meaning of life is tough. Don't waste time looking here, unless you are already down to the Branch Davidian or Jim Jones and obviously have too much time on your hands.

It's too bad you can't rate ZERO!

[meet_the_feebles · 1/10 · 8 March 2002]

Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.

Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****)

I simply don't see the value.

[kilgres_bloodmoon · 1/10 · 3 February 2001]

Let me first say that I am not a Christian. I do not subscribe to any religion, and my views of the Book of Revelation are preterest at most. I am, however, a lover of film. And let me be the next to say that this film is awful. Abysmal. Worse than "The Omega Code", and that's a bad thing. Kirk Cameron's "performance" was leagues worse than the insipid acting effort put forth by Casper Van Dien, and THAT is definitely a bad thing.

Take the location of the shoots. Much of this film takes place in Israel or the United States. This film was shot entirely inside Canada. I'm sorry, but Saskatchewan wheat fields simply do not resemble the Israeli landscape in even the most far-fetched scope of imagination (which this film asks the viewer to entertain throughout).

The most infuriating thing about this film is that it WILL win awards, mostly from the Protestant groups that applaud its very existence. This is the same reason that the horribly written and conceived books sell millions. As an aspiring novelist, this also makes me ill. To all the fans of the books and movie, think about this:

How many times have you seen a straight-to-video movie muscle its way into the theaters? I hope beyond hope that it fails dismally. 1 star (I'd give it none if there was an option).

Lord Have Mercy, End The World Before I Have To Finish Watching

[john-roberson · 1/10 · 21 April 2005]

This is just about the worst "apocalypse" movie I've ever seen. In fact, it makes Jack T. Chick comics look like sober, well-reasoned mythology, but it lacks the serious passion one at least can detect in those mad tracts. The music, effects, acting and scripting are all about as bland as barley water, and the actors are almost exclusively C-list 80s and 90s TV actors(like Kirk Cameron, its STAR) who obviously can't even get jobs in porn--and I guess this kind of thing is what you do after even porn won't have your has-been butt anymore. Funniest of all is a very phony and rather bare "Hollywood premiere" bit on the DVD extras with Tom Selleck present--and as this film went almost straight to video, this attempt to appear to be part of the mainstream is pretty sad. Christian alternative culture--why IS it so boring?

Growing Pains meets the Apocalypse

[The-Sarkologist · 2/10 · 3 January 2013]

You know how there are movies that are simply so bad that they become classics based purely upon the fact that they are bad. Well, this movie is not one of those movies. This movie is simply so bad that it will even fail to reach the cult status of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Mind you, the books in and of themselves were pretty shocking, but this movie takes it to a whole new level.

While I have, in the past, found the whole pre-millenialism theology to be interesting, and for a while even believed it, I would like to think that I have grown out of that stage of my life and returned to the amillenialism traditions of my parents, and though while people are entitled to believe what they believe, I find this whole fear mongering over the identity of the anti-Christ and the conspiratory theories behind the creation of the European Union to be just a little overboard. Oh, and on that point, the fact that we are seeing a possible break up of the Euro-zone goes to show that these so called prophecies of the end times that were made in the nineties have turned out to be little more than bunk. Also, I found making the anti-Christ Eastern European was also a little disrespectful to, well, Eastern Europeans, but then I guess we could not have made him American, could have we.

As for theology, well, even ignoring the rather pathetic conversions, we here no mention of Jesus in this film, nor of his saving act, nor his death or resurrection. In fact, it seems as if Jesus does not exist and that what this movie is actually promoting is the American Civil Religion of God and the Bible (though the civil religion does have Jesus in it). For a movie that is supposed to be heavily Christian, I am somewhat surprised that the original authors even allow this movie to be made.

Can't anyone be unbiased about this?

[lemmy999 · 6/10 · 19 March 2001]

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.

Books should never have been written, films should never have been made.

[n-mo · 1/10 · 4 October 2008]

I would give this one a big fat "-75" out of ten if it was possible. I almost hesitate even to comment on this tripe, which is not worthy of my attention but unfortunately has captivated that of tens of millions of illiterate American born-again Christians. I picked up the first book in the grocery store and attempted to read the first page or two; alas, Tim LaHaye is a ghastly writer. But that only makes this production more puzzling: I would have expected that LaHaye's sheer lack of literary talent, enormous financial success and noted Romophobia would have been enough to have Hollywood producers fighting and clawing to produce a professional-looking film adaptation.

Not so, I'm afraid. Hollywood apparently hates born-again Christians even more than it hates traditional Christians. Still, one is amused to hear the critics charging that this promotes a "fundamentalist," "conservative" or even "reactionary" interpretation of the Apocalypse. This is part of the reason I condescended to write this review. Something needs to be cleared up this moment: there is nothing "conservative" about the theology peddled in this franchise. Prior to the 19th century, most Christians, including "conservatives," understood "Tribulation" as persecution, the "Millennium" as the long age after the Council of Nicaea, and "Israel" after the New Testament as the CHURCH, *not* a literal nation!

Catholic views of the Whore of Babylon and the anti-Christ vary widely, ranging from everything to the Roman Empire and the Emperor to anyone preaching false doctrine to St. Robert Bellarmine's belief in an evil emperor in Jerusalem, an outrageous modification of which influenced pre-millennial thought. For their part, traditional Protestants have never believed the Whore of Babylon would be the United Nations or the anti-Christ would be its chairman; these titles were respectively and perpetually held, in their view, by the Catholic Church and the Pope. A few Eastern Orthodox and a few others suggest a resurgent Ottoman Empire or perhaps even Peter the Great of Russia.

Really, though, almost any imaginable interpretation would have made for a far more engrossing story than the at best selectively literal interpretation of the Apocalypse posited by the Dispensational Premillennialist Covenant theologians of LaHaye's school. Let's say all of a sudden a percentage of the world's population vanishes before everyone's eyes. (I'll resist the temptation to crack a tasteless joke about the idea that "born-again Christians" might all disappear someday.) There are always sceptics who attempt to explain everything away, but for about 80 percent of the world's population this would surely be crowning proof of the Blackstonian interpretation of the Apocalypse. Why don't we see far more instant conversions than we do here?

There are, of course, other problems with this movie: there is talk of a horrendously turbulent world, and yet we never see it. There are the "actors," if they can be called such. There is the amateurish film-making. Above all there is the uncritical praise given by so many born-again Christians, some of whom go so far as to celebrate, even encourage and instigate, increasing geopolitical turbulence (often centered around the Middle East and the Holy Land) and believing it is their Divine duty to accelerate the return of Christ. Did Our Lord not specifically admonish that "It is not for you to know the hour"?

This is a bad movie, based on bad source material, but it does not fall under the banner of a "conservative Christian" film by any standard, and the people clinging to its disastrous theology have little recognisable share of the magnificent 2,000 year legacy of this Faith. "By their fruits ye shall know them," we are told, and this is the best they can come up with. Avoid at all costs.

Great movie!

[breereeves-19868 · 8/10 · 16 December 2019]

I feel like people in general give movies bad reviews for no apparent reason. Maybe they expect too much or they just don't know a good movie when they see it! I read this series and loved it. The acting in this isn't that great but you get the point. The end is coming.. its basically a lamens version of Revelations in the Bible. You also have to realize this movie was made almost 20 years ago too. Acting has come a long way since then. Kirk Cameron plays very well he's made for this part, it's some of the other generic actors and actresses that aren't as good that kind of make it look B-rated. But, I definitely think it's worth watching or at least reading.

Excellent for all Believers

[dacmoviebuff · 7/10 · 23 January 2022]

I have come to the conclusion that those who have given this movie bad reviews and criticized it must not be true believers in the Bible. I have been reading and studying the Bible for the past two years. This film does a good job of representing the prophecies relating to the rise of the antichrist, God's promise to protect Israel, and the Rapture. It's not intended to be a big budget action movie. Definitely worth watching if you're familiar with the Bible.

How blatant can you get?

[guyb · 1/10 · 24 April 2001]

Irregardless of where you stand on the religious spectum, this was not a good advertisement for the right wing. The commercial sell-out was one of the most blatant I've seen. For example, have you ever seen a lattop with the brand so big: "TOSHIBA." About ten times reality. The Apple one was pretty bad too. My wife tells me the book is acually pretty good, but this film was so clearly targeted to manipulate and influence people. If the human race is really this stupid to fall for a film like thisl, then we deserve whatever we get from above!