Left Behind III: World at War (2005) User Reviews

I guess it's slightly better

[ericstevenson · 4/10 · 7 November 2016]

I have looked through all the films in the series and realized that "Left Behind" is ranked as one of the worst film series ever made. It gets even worse with that awful Nicolas Cage remake, easily the worst of all! Anyway, I didn't see the second part, because at this time at least, I have no interest. It looks like we've made little progress. This movie features Nicole Carpathia using biological warfare to infect people's Bibles to kill all the Christians. Yeah, it's about as dumb as it sounds. The President appears and he manages to get just about anywhere he wants, even though I assume it would be hard for the American President to walk around so easily.

He survives being thrown out of a building because he's protected by God, I suppose. Then he decides he can at least weaken Carpathia by blowing up his home base. He succeeds, but Carpathia is once again unscathed. I don't know why he had to kill himself for real that time. He gets to the top of the building because I guess God makes him invisible or something. This film is mostly boring with what little action they have being rushed. I heard that this was different from the books, which I wasn't keeping up with. Of course, I heard the books are mostly pretty dumb too. I guess there are some good scenes where Kirk Cameron is talking about his faith. It's actually a nice quiet comment that makes sense in the series' context. I'd say I was glad the story ended here, but then they wouldn't have made awful said Nicolas Cage remake. *1/2

Before the action starts, they have a prayer!

[zaeazeaz · 3/10 · 3 November 2005]

The movie looks kind of like a regular action movie at first however while sitting through the movie you notice that there's a lot of chistianism in it. It contained to much references to the bible which I as an atheist who wasn't aware of the movie content didn't appreciate. At one part the president of the united states who must be black according to the movie makers when the end of time is near, abducted a regular guy (the main character) and asks him a question and the guy takes a bible and read's a verse from it, yikes.

Only for fans of the book.

[Russ_T_Bitz · 3/10 · 4 September 2006]

As with most viewers of this film, I'm an avid reader of the books. The first 2 films have Buck, Ray and Chloe as the main characters but in this the second sequel they play second-fiddle to Louis Gossett JR's Presidential effort. World at War is based on the meeting he has with Buck in the book series.

The problem is - this film is as awful as the first two. Amanda appears just from nowhere and suddenly has a significant part to play (I won't reveal it in case anyone hasn't read the series). Other illogical parts feature. I really really want Cloud 10 to make a good Left Behind film but sadly this is similar in all the bad ways to the first 2.

Christian propaganda masquerading as an action movie.

[no-logo · 25 August 2006]

I first read about the Left Behind series a few months ago and made a mental note to check it out since I have an interest in the way religion is used to control people in our ever more hate filled world, so imagine my surprise and joy when I found a copy of Left Behind : World at War in my local library, nestling innocently among the big budget action movies.

Now as a movie it's extremely poor. The acting is straight out of an elementary school production and the "special effects" would have looked dated in the early 90's. Being the third part of a series the story would be unintelligible to anyone who hadn't seen or read about the other Left Behind movies, and even with my prior knowledge it was still pretty laughable.

On the religious front, I don't think anyone who wasn't already filled with the spirit of the lord would find anything in the movie to convince them to change their ways. How are you supposed to fear the Antichrist when he's got a comedy Russian accent, and the worst of his powers are some pitiful CGI?

However, my main problem with this movie is the blatant attempt to try and dupe people into believing that it's a big budget action movie. Upon picking up the box and reading the spiel I immediately noticed something odd...nowhere on the packaging was there a mention of the true nature of this film. To someone not in the know it would appear for all intents and purposed that Left Behind : World at War was no different from the latest Tom Clancey. Nor, on the copy that I rented did it say anything about it being the third in a series.

Considering the whole premise of the series is that the Antichrist has deceived the whole world, I find it extremely hypocritical that the film makers tried to deceive me TWICE before I even got the to counter! If you're so firm in your beliefs then why not be honest about it?

The simple fact is, had this not been a "Christian" movie with the built in fan base that goes with it, I seriously doubt it would ever have seen the light of day. If Cloud Ten were hoping that I'd see the error of my ways and give myself to God, I'm afraid to say I would have died of boredom and/or laughed myself to death before I ever had the chance.

irony-free zone

[to-54 · 1/10 · 11 November 2009]

In the 3rd installment of "Left Behind" the makers did not care to put ANY KIND OF CONTINUITY into the plot. Although all weapons on the planet have been confiscated by the United Nations, World War III suddenly begins at the snap of a finger. Within a few split-seconds the ex-lover of one of the main protagonists moves from passionately seducing him to outright hatred to a melancholy confession of love without any trace of direction.

But foremost this film is really an irony-free zone. After the president of the United States accepts Jesus as his savior he immediately becomes a suicide bomber and blows up a skyscraper in the middle of the city. Osama Bin Laden will be very jealous when he sees this film!

Left Behind, You Betcha!

[carlt1911 · 1/10 · 8 December 2005]

Left Behind is a great name for these series of films. They should be left behind, in the darkest most inaccessible place on earth. If you pick up a movie at the rental store with the words Kirk Cameron and Left Behind you are about to waist 1 1/2 + hours of your time on a movie that is so boring being in traction with a broken leg is far more exciting and a we bit less painful. I am not sure if the producers were trying to camouflage these films as real drama but what they got was a dramatized religious Sunday school movie. The films are preaching the word of god and trying to put those words in a dialog of a normal dramatic film. What they ended up with was bad acting and an even worse script. Is it bad Directing or a combination of many things? Why was the acting so bad in so many scenes? I seen many of these actors in other films have great or at least above average performances. I actually chose to watch the first Left Behind film from beginning to end and because of a holly roller relative I was forced to watch most of the second and third movies. It's obvious that Kirk Cameron is a very religious person and that's great but if he is going to push his religious beliefs on people through the films he is involved with then those films should be advertised as religious films and not something else.

so crazy just keeps getting crazier

[patmcma · 1/10 · 23 January 2007]

Let me first say that I received the "Left Behind Trilogy" as a Christmas present from my brother who, like me, has a strange love of really bad film. I watched all three movies in a row, totally uninterrupted other than leaving for much needed cigarette breaks. Never have I ever seen such unmitigated crap in my life. As a Christian, I have to say I have rarely been this offended. That being said lets get down to the film. The first two films: Crap. The third: Crap, but not quite as crappy and here is why. The production value was surprisingly good as was the photography. Big props to the folks who free-lanced on this film and managed to walk away with their creative souls intact. Now for the not so great. EVERYTHING ELSE. The acting, the writing, the browbeating of message. Just when I wasn't so sure that this was a Christian film, the script gladly supplied me with yet another prayer moment. The only time I've ever seen this many prayers was at an Irish Catholic funeral for a priest. A small little piece of advice to the religious right filming community; try subtlety. It make so much more enjoyable for the viewer.

Poor production with mediocre acting and boring story

[mymailscreen · 1/10 · 30 June 2006]

Didn't expect much, and was still disappointed. Acting is bad, storytelling is boring, and the holes in the story are big enough for 747's to fly through. Rhythm in the film are seriously hampered by endless praying and talking about God's will.

The film is based on a book-series that enjoy a lot of popularity in the USA. Its the story about the end of days, with a lot of paranoia about the United Nations thrown into the mix. Christians may like the film somewhat better than I did however even films based on religious themes should be of better quality than this.

If your in the mood for some spiritual refueling flip on God-channel or something. For action, Jean Claude Van Damme is a better bet.

Dog Soldiers is even better movie than this....

[rjauhone · 1/10 · 22 October 2005]

This movie is not about third world war, as you might think it is. There is anti-Christ who rule the world and people are dying by biological weapon. What?! Jesus save all people if president start to believe in God. What!? President of United State is John Rambo 2. To stop the war president shoot the missile at himself and anti-Christ. And anti-Christ still live after that. What the point? Lot of praying and lot of characters who doesn't do anything in the movie. Everywhere are flying bombs but nobody are afraid of them. Nice! No panic. Hmm... Luckily this movie wasn't to long and there wasn't wasted good actors. I could watch Dog Soldiers three times straight rather that this movie.

Finally they're starting to get it right

[velcrohead · 7/10 · 26 October 2005]

I didn't really know what to expect from this direct-to-video release. I certainly expected the Christian basher reviewers to come on full force. They never can stand us to say anything about their stuff, but I'm sure they'll have words to say about ours. Anway, the previous two movies were passable, but nowhere near the quality of the books they were based on.

That's not the case with Left Behind: World at War.

At the helm this time is director Craig R. Baxley, whose previous work makes it no surprise that directing movies with suspense, apocalyptic themes, and action should come naturally to him. The movie is directed and edited much differently than the previous two. The movie relies very little on special effects. Baxley's used to letting set pieces and camera angles convey the mood and tell the story of a post-apocalyptic world.

It's a lot darker this time around. There's a more palpable feeling of despair and tension as Nicolae tightens his grip over the world and tries to stamp out Christianity and other opposing governments. The action is more grim and gritty, and the film is often graphically violent.

Somehow, almost all of the original cast have returned, with the notable exception of Clarence Gilyard (Bruce Barnes.) The trade-off is good though, with Arnold Pinnock taking over Bruce's character. Pinnock delivers the character more believably and was a welcome breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, the character of Bruce won't be able to return for the next film. Janaya Stephens has gotten better as Chloe, and even Kirk Cameron appears to have ratcheted up his game as he pours his heart and soul into his role. Chelsea Noble's back as Hattie. Gordon Currie returns as the embodiment of all evil, Nicolae Carpathia, though he gets very little screen time. I was most surprised to see film vet Brad Johnson return as he seems to be rather busy lately, but I'm glad he did, because no one else really could be Rayford Steele. New to the cast is Laura Catalano as Amanda White, Rayford's wife. Also joining the cast is Oscar winner Lou Gossett Jr as President Gerald Fitzhugh. He is a very welcome addition and brings credibility to the series.

If you were hoping that the movie would adhere strictly to the books, you'll be disappointed. That being said, there are definitely connections there, but the movie takes its own liberties. Fortunately, that's not always a bad thing. The movie explores a character, President Fitzhugh, that was glossed over in the books, and spends most of the time following his story. What happens is sort of like a side-trip within the books...something we didn't know about that could have happened in the continuity. Chloe and Bruce get sick off infected Bibles, which brings about the end of Pastor Barnes, which many of you will remember from the book series. The connection between Ray and Hattie is touched on once, but kind of glossed over. Part of the difficulty of fitting all these characters into a 90 minute movie is that a lot of character development gets left out, and some characters just sort of sit like window dressings. One gets the feeling that the movie would've been able to pull it off better if the run time was stretched out to 2 or 2.5 hours. However, the story we do get is interesting and relevant, and it ends up coming off a lot better than the fractured, pieced-together-so-as-to-not-diverge-too-much-from-the-book way of the first movie. And the story is treated as real and taken seriously.

The movie doesn't get too preachy either. It references the previous rapture maybe twice. And when the characters are having a conversation it isn't stilted in the manner of the first two movies (they're having a conversation, but you know it's a thinly veiled sermon pointed at the audience.) There's only one person to get saved in this movie, and it's at the end and doesn't feel as artificial as those in the previous two. This doesn't weaken the message though. It makes it more powerful, as the whole movie builds itself up to this point.

There are no super-cheesy special effects in this movie (think about the air raid at the beginning of the first) and they left out the cheesy CCM soundtrack this time (think "i know that i will not...be...left...behind..." *shudder.*) All in all, this movie's a thousand times more well done than the others and will appeal to more than just the target audience of Christians.

If you don't happen to believe in the rapture and the millennium (many Christians don't,) you can still learn a lot from this movie. There's a great deal spoken here about persecution of the church, and the images here could very well be images of the future prior to Christ's return if the religious atmosphere in this country continues on its current trend. Oppression of religion has been a factor in this world for a long time, and it's very eye-opening to see the portrayal of persecution on our own soil in this movie.

Now for the DVD extras. Kirk Cameron fans will be happy to know that there's a "Way of the Master" extra on this DVD that features Kirk and Ray Comfort. It includes a message from Kirk and a portion of their video seminar. Also included on the disc are a couple of music videos, deleted scenes, a technical "making of" featurette, a character featurette, bloopers and outtakes, and an audio commentary.

All in all, it's worth your watch.

Oye

[mendezjb · 1/10 · 13 January 2006]

I'm a big fan of bad movies. Loved Glitter, loved Crossroads, and for some of the same reasons I loved the first 2 Left Behind movies.

As a Christian seeing this movie which was marketed to Christians (in addition to a movie that might help evangelize to non-believers), I have the following to say. All the people who loved it on this site were the main targets for the movie. So they were going to love it no matter what. But the movie has horrible acting, dialogue, and is pretty much a snooze. The first two actually had more genuine drama to it, even though they were still cheese.

The theology behind the movie is about 200 years old, a man-made innovation into Christianity that never existed in the prior 1800 years of the faith and has no biblical basis. They've been calling for the rapture for years, and will continue to do so forever. Jack Kinsella (Hal Lindsey's best bud) last year said he'd be surprised to see 2006. Well now he'll be surprised to see 2007...and 2040. It will go on forever. Essentially, the "rapture" as they understand it will actually not happen till the very end as any plain reading of the text states. So don't worry, no one will be left behind.

Since it is such a terrible movie, it will fail as an evangelizing tool to "nonbelievers". It will just get the rapture-ites all excited. But one day they will come to the same conclusion the Millerites came to when the end never arrived when they thought...that they were wrong and should get with the program.

Bottom line? If you like bad movies like Glitter for entertainment and laugh value see both Omega Codes. Those are funny-bad movies. This one is just a stinker.

World at War proves that sometimes the movie is better than the book.

[thegrimmsleeper · 9/10 · 28 October 2005]

There have been three Left Behind films based on the first two books, and I have to admit that the films are a great deal better. Many events are changed, but the changes are for the better. Whereas the book is kind of a rolling, mindless narrative that seems to randomly change and has no real structure except the author's random whims, the films have a plot and quite a bit of substance. They've taken the creative characters that Jenkins somehow concocted and made them people much more real than the 2D stereotypes they previously were.

The third film, "Word at War", which is based on the last 50 pages of the second book, was much better. In terms of style and narrative - well, Cloud Ten hit it right on this time. There was very little that reeked of "Christian film" here, and that's a good thing. The narrative and style are refined and consistent. The acting is all much better. In particular, series regulars Brad Johnson and Janaya Stephens both turn in great performances. Kirk Cameron is still Kirk Cameron, which doesn't work too much in his favor. His real-life wife, Chelsea Field, has always sounded like she's reading lines instead of becoming the character, and it's really noticeable here. There's a scene where she's trying to seduce Rayford and it just drags on endlessly. Probably the only real cringe-worthy moment of the film. The newly recast Bruce Barnes, played by Arnold Pinnock, did a decent job. Unfortunately, his unfamiliar face at this very crucial moment in Bruce's life really detracts from what should be a very, very pivotal moment in the film. Given the choice I would have preferred Clarence Gilyard, who payed Bruce in the first two films.

I was extremely impressed with Laura Catalano, who played Rayford's second wife, Amanda. I was annoyed that her introduction was shorted so greatly - Rayford goes from weeping over his first wife in the previous film to getting married again in the opening moments of this one. Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed Amanda - Laura Catalano brought her to life in a way Jenkins couldn't begin to figure out. Her character was a highlight of the film despite her short amount of screen time.

The story was put together pretty well. It focused more on President Gerald Fitzhugh (played by the fantastic Lou Gossett Jr.) than on our band in the Tribulation Force. This really annoys some people, but it's an approach I can understand. The events of the last fifty pages of Tribulation Force had no cohesion whatsoever and, frankly, are so earth-shattering that they deserve their own story. And while many people dislike the focus on President Fitzhugh, I found it quite interesting to get inside the mind of one of the most overlooked characters in the series. Lou Gossett portrays this guy as someone who even I would vote for - noble, distinguished, but not afraid to draw his own gun and kick some ass when necessary. His gutsy move at the end - though contrived - worked well for the story and provided a bit of redemption for the character that he lacks in the books. This is one instance where deviation from the books allowed the film makers to craft a MUCH better story.

The story finds a biological agent poisoning the Christians of America, who are proclaiming Nicholae the Antichrist of the book of Revelations. It's definitely an interesting, if somewhat sci-fi style, notion that wasn't included in the book. It brings some dignity to the death of Pastor Bruce Barnes, which is the first of many losses the Tribulation Force will suffer before the end of history. But the cure for this agent is so patently absurd, I find it hard to believe it was actually used. While this is happening, we follow Fitzhugh's exploits as he learns his friend Carpathia isn't all he appears to be.

There has been some debate on the validity of Nicholae's powers as seen in this film. They're a bit more "Charmed" in nature, with Carpathia levitating the president and smiling when Fitzhugh tries to shoot him and the bullets kill the guy standing behind him. Though the books are never so blatant, this kind of thing isn't unprecedented. Either way it didn't bother me, since I view this particular theological mindset with a pound of salt anyway. I don't buy into the complaints of Carpathia's duplicity - seeing him as more monster than man is part of the progression of the books so it's fitting that we see less of his public face and more of his "evil" face here. Eventually all we'll ever see is "monster".

I was glad to see some things being set up for later - Hattie's pregnancy, for example, and the seeds of her own salvation. The ending of the film gives me continued hope for a fourth film. But if they try to recast anyone else - especially any of the remaining 3 original Trib Force members - the series may lose some serious meaning.

By the end of the film, we arrive at a very similar position to where we are by the end of the second book: a world at war, a dead president, a pastor-less Trib Force, and with much of the world we knew gone. I would expect the next film to focus a bit more on the Trib Force and continue to progress the overall story. I hope that the improvement in quality continues and especially that they're able to do justice to what is about to become a vast array of characters. The books introduce a crap load of Trib Force members in the coming volumes and doing justice to them all in a 2 hour film will be tough. Hopefully the brothers Lalonde will continue what they've begun.

Not my type of movie but was great!

[jgreenhood · 7/10 · 12 February 2006]

I've seen all three of the left behind movies they are not my type of movie. I'm just not big on movies with religious undertones. That aside it really is a great movie.

There's lots of drama and a bit of action mixed with the plot of a world at war under the rule of devil. Not to mention great acting. I know there's many movies about then end of the world and man vs. the Devil but this story really is unlike any other.

I highly recommend you watch Left behind the movie and Tribulation Force before watching this one. Chances are if you can't get into the first movie or just didn't like the first movie than this one isn't for you.

Worst Movie Ever Seen

[woolitz · 1/10 · 24 November 2005]

By far the worst movie I've ever seen in my life.... Cannibal Women from the Avocado Jungle of Death was better. The plot was terrible, the acting, it was like a corny soap opera. The whole concept was dumb. How did a Christian hater become a world leader? wow, it made no sense at all. Please explain the ending. All the worlds scientists working together to make a powerful weapon. I won't ruin the ending for you. But let me tell you this: It ain't even worth watching the title screen, because this movie sucks. It seemed like the ending happened because the film ran out of money. Was it supposed to be some bad attempt at setting up a sequel? There wasn't even an ending at all. I feel sorry for the actors who had to be in this movie. I don't think they paid them enough. Two Thumbs down!

great for worst movies list

[franlorin · 1/10 · 19 November 2005]

Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a "president" and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved Issues

I will attempt to list just a few:

1 - what was the purpose of "stockpiling" a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the "tribulation force" already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was "cured", how did she suddenly know the wine was the "antidote"? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received "communion" at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a "heavy" box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that?

2 - the presentation of "evil" forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Cliché as to be Laughable

3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actor

I, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available

a sermon not a movie

[davidjm-2 · 1/10 · 29 October 2005]

One if the things I was upset about was the fact that there was no warning on the box in the video store about what this movie was really about. What are they afraid of - rejection ? I thought Christianity was stronger than that. I watched the movie from front to back, hoping for a redeeming factor, but there was none. Poor acting, long boring sequences, simplistic ideas, not a real or original plot, nothing to "think about", and frankly, in this genre, I've seen wonderful movies - although they were made in the fifties and sixties of the last century. If you think about it, there are many television shows these days with similar themes, but the honest ones are all on the tel-evangelical channels, where they aren't afraid to say who they are - right up front. Movies should always have an entertainment factor, even if they are serious. If they bill themselves as Documentaries or other genres, that's different. And if proselytizing is the goal, then this failed miserably as well. I would recommend that viewers think twice about spending their hard earned money on this film, it doesn't deserve to be on the shelf of my video store. Now if they had a section called..." Religious Films" that would be a different story.

Don't be Left Behind...Watching this movie!!!!

[nitropr45 · 1/10 · 23 May 2006]

This movie is a terribly bad literal understanding of the bible texts. Maybe they tried to do too much with the book series and frankly not even Louis Gosset Jr. can save this awful movie. Anyway this "additional return of the Lord movie" will enchant mostly those already obsessed with this kind of "Jack Chickesque" stories. The production has some value and give them credit for trying, but this material has little redemption to represent. I will not propose an end times treatise here. It is just that the whole notion of the movie is plain wrong. A president helping the anti-Christ, realizing what he has done, fighting him back. This requires elaborate imagination as biblically it does not stands scrutiny. And that is the flaw of the movie and the whole franchise. Escathological scrutiny will have you, at best, laughing at the premise. Also their literal view seems biased against the Catholic Church. Fo a good understanding of Tim La Hayes series check out Carl Olson's books on the subject.

Well ... that sucked!

[soulslayerman · 2/10 · 19 April 2006]

Unless u are a hard core Christian this movie is to be avoided.... I really do not know what to say about ,it all aspects of the movie range from poor to awful. I don't think there is another movie out there mentioning so many times the name of god (reminded me of religion class:D). The movie sucked for the following reasons:

-the "dont mind the bullets,pray!" attitude.

-extremely bad acting.

-lawsy computer graphics.

-no outside scenes since the war starts. And most of all the scenario goofs e.x. ww3 has broken out and cell phones r working,red wine heals deadly disease,president goes out of his way to reveal vital information to a unessential person(mind u that he is not even government official,friend or even has an actual purpose in the movie) over ordinary cell phone. In conclusion this movie is a waste of time and an insult to viewers intelligence and i come to wonder how did it get such a score ?Probably all kind of Christian fanatics voted it ...again ....and again...and again...

Great movie bad at following the books

[lil_angel0083008203 · 5/10 · 3 July 2007]

(Checked the spoiler box just in case this would count as such which I really do not feel it does)

Yes I very much enjoyed this movie it was very well put together but, sorry to have to say this, it was not something I see as following what the books had. Where was the earthquake? Why didn't the people that should have died there die in the earthquake instead of by the poison? Buck was very well portrayed in all three movies this one only seems better due to how many years of hardship he was going through during this time. He was and is in the movies and books supposed to be young and very energetic which he was. I still have to say the movie would have had more drama and more action if it had better followed the books.

The men that wrote the books did more research then what was done on the movie. You should follow the books as they followed the Bible. My thoughts are this "World at War" needs to be redone and fit more closely to the third book. I mean having Carpathia leap to the helicopter to escape the building's demise from the earthquake in New Babylon is great action and drama.

Again yes the movie was good but would have been much better laid out if followed the book. I do hope they continue filming as I enjoy watching the books come to life on the screen. Just hope they follow the books from now on.

A great step forward for Christian movies.

[revbmingo · 7/10 · 25 October 2005]

If you are a fan of the Left Behind series of books or movies you will enjoy this film. I can honestly say that I enjoyed it more the second time I watched it then the first. There are some points in the movie that you have to watch closely to get the why and how of the message. I got it better the second time than the first. I had showed the first two Left Behind movies at my church then showed this movie when it was released so we were excited about seeing the long awaited part three. No one was disappointed. Please watch the movie. Do not let the opinion of someone who has no idea of what the movie is about to dissuade you. I would suggest that you watch "Left Behind" and Left Behind Tribulation Force" first. Why not just call a bunch of friends over, pop some popcorn and have a Left Behind Film Festival. Who knows, it might just change someone's life.

Scare mongering for five year olds

[OrderedChaos · 1/10 · 16 February 2011]

I would have given this film a minus ten but apparently IMDb does not support my expression.

What was the purpose of these three films and to end the way it did lol Hey kids God was with them all the way, watching them die and to then have the bad guy walking out of flames smiling, seriously.

At first I thought besides being a really badly interpreted bible fiction this has to be Classic Christian scare tactics to get the gullible into church.

Now I am starting to believe maybe there is an anti Christ as surely only he, she or it would have created this crap.

Then again I don't think this film does either side of the religious camps any favours.

Apparently unifying all faiths to stick to the simple concept of "hey we all believe in God within each individual religion" is a bad thing??? Obviously you may be able to tell that I like to think out of the box instead of solely giving my attention to a dusty old book written by homosapes and one of many.

I view my self to be a Goodly person but not one of faith, the fact I made it through all three films should at least show I have an open mind and give even the biggest pile of crap a chance.

(Truth, I viewed the first for research on a story of my own and had to give the other two films a chance and regretted it) Watch this trilogy if your the type that has or could find themselves joining a registered cult like Scientology.

I couldn't imagine a Christian or person of faith (not registered Enterprise) understanding the purpose or point of this film.

Overall save the time watch one of the worse films in history "Legion" and save having to watch another two films in a trilogy that is "Left rear end" Before any registered Jedi try to have a moan the first two books sucked ball z and unlike the films I was smart enough to know when to give up ahhh the headaches.

You have been warned!!!

Wow this was incredible

[nator_5 · 10/10 · 3 November 2005]

I can't believe how well done this movie was. It was so much better than the books. I can't believe how much better Kirk was in this movie his best performance ever. The story was so compelling I just couldn't get enough of it. This is going to be hard to follow up as it was indeed the best of all three movies. I thought the film had enough action and fx to keep anyone happy and since it developed the character of the president far beyond what was in the books it gave me something extra since I didn't know what was going to happen. The Trib Force had something to do in the movie, they were actively taking part rather than just praying and hiding. Way to go Cloud Ten and keep them coming!!!!

The unfortunate unraveling of Left Behind

[Robert_duder · 6/10 · 22 October 2005]

Any movie loses steam as it continues...there is nothing exempt from that and sadly Left Behind after two remarkable entries meets that road block with the third installment which really could have been their take off point. When I heard several changes to the production crew including bringing on director Craig Baxley and Sony Pictures coming on board, I was thrilled!! I figured this could change the series into a real contender for a mainstream film series. Baxley, like the other directors from the series has been around a long time but he's best known for his work on Stephen King films such as the brilliantly done Storm of The Century and Rose Red. He could bring exactly the dark twist necessary to the Left Behind series.

The film as part of the trilogy is of course still worth seeing, they just seem to make so many grievous errors. First of all they left the book series practically in the dust when they created this one. Normally I would be okay with that but the first two installments were so closely related to the book that it just doesn't make sense to have this one so far from it. They brought on award winning actor (Emmy, Academy award, Golden Globe etc.) Louis Gossett Jr. and they used him as the star power of the film as though he was HUGE!! The entire film revolved around him and in the process it left the rest of the returning cast in the dust. Kirk Cameron in his role as Buck Williams still continues to improve his role and his acting. This is his best performance yet as Buck, far more believable and starting to look the part. Brad Johnson probably would still do great as Rayford Steele if not for that fact that he's hardly in the film!! Janaya Stephens is great as Chloe and really gets to show off her acting chops when she becomes terminally ill. Cast replacement Arnold Pinnock as Pastor Bruce Barnes is okay but the previous actor was far better. The addition to the main cast Laura Catalano as Rayford's new wife Amanda is great. She looks and seems like she's perfect for the role but again...she too is hardly in it!! The whole film revolves around the President and his attempt to stop World War III.

Gordon Currie returns as the evil head of the Global Community Nicolae Carpathia. Unfortunately the screenplay writers and director forgot some key elements of this. Currie's best performance is that he can perfectly balance evil and his alternate public face. They never use his public side. The public adore this man and yet they make him out to be pure evil right now. They also created him to be indestructible which is wrong!! He's not indestructible, he's flesh and blood and furthermore will be flesh and blood until his assassination much later on. They made him far more supernaturally powerful than he should been. The evangelistic message is still there quite heavily in this installment but not nearly as evident as the others. It was done with far more subtlety. An attempt was made to mainstream the film but to do so I think they changed everything about the series that was great. I also think they made it very hard for themselves to continue this series which could go on for 10 more amazing films!! There is so much content to cover it would be a piece of cake. But because they chose to stray from the original story they made it very hard. I have become a big fan of the original cast and they were the ones who got left behind in this film all in the name of someone they hoped would be recognizable. This installment of the series if definitely far more polished which is great!! The acting has improved a great deal. The budget has remained the same and the story line is a little more complex than the second film. It just wasn't fit together properly. The film jumps from location to location. The characters move around the world in seconds, setting doesn't seem like the important issue but it is!! And despite the fact that World War III is happening in the U.S. we never get to see any of it. We don't get to see the actual war and that is disappointing and unfortunate because that's what this installment is all about!! Some may like this far more than the original films but for me...a fan of the books, and the original films I felt disappointed. I hope someone turns it all around!! 6/10

what I thought of the movie

[agoldswo · 1/10 · 24 January 2006]

Yet another shameful attempt to capture the true essence that is Left Behind. To tell you the truth the first two films stuck with the story line far better then this recent catastrophe. Just as the first it was plagued with pop culture Christian rock band music, which only added to the poorly written scripted and the nauseating corniness that these films seem to trademark. This could not possibly be the third book Nicolae. If it is why is Buck a News anchor, the president of the United States a Carpathia assassin armed with a ridicules porcelain gun? Also why is Nicolae poisoning bibles with a deadly virus this is like a Saturday morning cartoon script aimed at 5 year old. Not to mention I don't remember the president in the book being black. The word disappointment cannot even begin to describe what I felt after reading the majority of these novels and then seeing the mockery that is the films. I have only read to book six so far but I can tell you one thing cloud 10 should cut their losses and not endanger any more fans by producing another one of these tragedies. Personally I think that cloud ten, should be sued for destroying what could have been the next big movie saga to hit the big screen. I just pray a reputable film studio will pick up the series and put it into a suitable format. This could be done by sticking to the books, getting actors that don't suck to play the roles (Christian or not Christian) and most of all getting a sound track and script that is not so corny and lame that the audience feels embarrassed for the actors reading and playing in the film. It might not hurt to get a few Jews input on the script because they are the ones who write the best. I will say this; the message in the movie is still good but alas the script sucks so bad I fear it may be lost in translation.

The Best of the Series but.....

[bargen · 5/10 · 24 October 2005]

To be honest, when I went into this movie, I wasn't expecting much. I had seen the first two, and was modestly satisfied. Yet, as the film began to roll, the first 20 minutes really impressed me, especially for Christian cinema. However, as the plot started to get weighed down by unnecessary drama and bad acting, I grew disheartened.

For me there were several parts that were a tad ridiculous, such as the gun toting 60 year old president (who at least was well acted) but didn't even think that "hey! if were going to go on a mission to investigate a secret chemical factory, they might have some surveillance equipment there!" However, as a film, I have seen a lot worse (Fat Albert anyone?) and a lot better. Yet, even this film in the end did work for me, because A) of my faith, B) most of the action sequences, especially the ones at the start and C) the acting of one of the lead characters, portrayed well by Lou Garrett Jr.

Obviously, Christian cinema is always going to be just that. Cinema that only appeals to the Christians. I'm still hoping to one day see someone who will be able to branch the two (Passion of the Christ came close I suppose, but thats a whole other story).....