Eric Stevenson
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
Blondmyk
For some reason, this series of movies just can't capture any of the excitement or suspense of the original books. I don't know what's causing this, perhaps the screenplays, but dang. It had such potential to be an awesome movie event. I wish someone with a bit of money would have taken this project and run with it, rather than leaving it to Mr. Cameron to try to do it all himself. I really admire his need to have this story told on the screen though...so I can't fault him in the least.This particular movie is the best in the series so far IMHO. Lou Gossett as the President of the United States was a serious boon to the series, so maybe more influential actors will get involved in it in the future.No matter what, I'll probably watch all of these. If they keep getting better, like this one is waaaay better than Trib Force, I may just start getting excited about them again.
jennys1983
Having been baptized as Roman Catholic and given a Roman Catholic education until I entered sixth form then university, I have a reasonable grasp of the theory behind the Left Behind series of films and books. I have my own views of organized religious institutions (well, all right, I'm completely opposed to most of them and believe they do more harm than good in today's societies, but I don't especially have the energy or the judgmental nature required to condemn people who hold strong beliefs; in all sincerity, it's a personal choice IMO), and I do find the plots vaguely interesting in terms of addressing the Rapture.But, having no interest in the religion behind it, I have to say that I watched all three movies (I got a good deal on all three DVDs as a box set as I wanted to see what the fuss was) with an eye for the filmic qualities. And I did enjoy them! I found the second ("Tribulation Force") excessively preachy, since it seemed to me that the first film ("Left Behind: The Movie") did quite well in conveying its message with a more subtle approach, but I still liked it well enough. I found that the acting was at least convincing, and in some parts inspired (I must confess, if you forgive the pun, which you should be able to if you're a Christian, that the anti-Christ is lip-bitingly sexy!), and any weaknesses in the cast improved in each film, as did the production values.I found the plots of the first two linear and sufficiently involving to hold my interest without effort on my part, but "World at War" I actively liked and enjoyed - the story moved at a faster pace and in a generally more cinematic way, perhaps a result of the straying from the books that has been complained about? The protagonists were, for the most part, less stereotypical than in the earlier movies, possibly through a plot which is based more on story than character and so they aren't given the chance to be tedious. Kirk Cameron's character, Buck Williams, thankfully got his hair cut and seemed more confident; Brad Johnson's character, Rayford Steele, remained a bit cold and motiveless for me; Janaya Stephens' Chloe Steele seems to mature; Chelsea Noble's Hattie Durham, though given less screen time, is probably one of the more useful, interesting and better constructed characters; Bruce Barnes, whether played by Clarence Gilyard or Arnold Pinnock is a bit of a non-entity as a leader, but I think Pinnock gives the stronger performance.The only exception is, unfortunately, Nicolae Carpathia. I felt it was a shame that only his 'true' aspect was in evidence, given how good, and enjoyable, Gordon Currie was in the first film at progressing from innocent and genuine to homicidally evil; it would have been nice (and fun!) to see Nicolae's public and private personae, as Currie plays charismatic and charming so well! Of course, it would also illustrate why he is in power and a popular figure (I assume he doesn't attempt to maim and kill *everyone* he comes into contact with), which I suppose does make the film rather insular and sadly means that as the other characters develop (sort of), he is reduced to something of a caricature, whereas given more scope, I feel Currie could make Nicolae the most well developed character in the whole series - I mean, he's the anti-Christ! I've always held the impression that both a literary and cinematic exploration of the figure of an anti-Christ would be fascinating, but I suppose that would require at least one entire film devoted to that single character's development, and to be fair, that isn't what any of the three films are trying to achieve (they'd probably be better served and more popular if they were). Of course, IMO, they don't achieve what Kirk Cameron asserts they are trying to either: at no point during viewing did Jesus tap me on the shoulder and show me 'The Way' (wish Nicolae had though).I'm very impressed with the DVDs - if only all films were released with so many special features, and the "WaW" DVD is probably the best for seeing the actors having a laugh behind the scenes (my favourite type of extras), and the commentary is fun.Perhaps strangely, I feel that these films could have been of a higher quality if made by a big name studio with no interest in the religious content, which I think is suggested by "WaW." And certainly with respect to the music (and I use the term in its loosest sense)...Generally, IMO, these aren't great films, and there are some moments that are a bit cringe-worthy (after all, they are religiously driven films made by a religiously driven film company), but they aren't terrible. The first was a bit ropey but interesting, the second was OK with better potential than the first but suffers from the volume of Bible quotes in the script (but I feel this is an acceptable risk given the film's theme), and the third is fairly cool but could do with more dimensions of Nicolae to make it more comprehensive and just a better rounded film.One thing I'm a bit surprised at is the apparent lack of worldwide offence at the Ben-Judah character's 'conversion', which seems like it would be far more offensive to me than Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Maybe this is simply a matter of media exposure? Ultimately, I would recommend that if you're not a Christian (or maybe even if you are), don't take these films too seriously, relax, and just see what you think. You might still hate them, but you might not get so annoyed about it!
