Left Behind: World at War (2005)

Some reviewers do not like this movie because it is a Christian movie, so they blindly hate it, just as those who watched Jesus Christ really heal people and even raise some from the dead, but the haters, rather than seeing good, wanted to kill Him, which they did.This is my reason the movie is awful: In one scene, the minister says, "The Lord asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son and because Abraham put it all in God's hand, it was counted unto him for righteousness."3 problems: 1 mild, 1 dangerous, 1 obvious1 mild: The minister discusses Abraham sacrificing his son, BUT the name "Isaac" is left out. It is mentioned clearly in Gen 22.2. This is important because Muslims say it was Ishmael who was sacrificed, as mentioned in the Koran, a corrupt remake of the Bible.2 dangerous: The minister states that Abraham committed an act which resulted in "righteousness". That is WORKS SALVATION and is out of context and wrong. Abraham had BELIEVED God earlier, in Gen 15. The movie wrongly and dangerously implies that Abraham did something to win righteousness.3 obvious: The script is really poor and overall, the movie flops much like other sequels. The first Left Behind was decent; the second, boring; the third, just awful because of the acting and the script. The only thing that caught my attention was, what I label, Movie Humor - Several times in the movie when a person asks God for help, a cell phone rings. Funny!

The first two films were closely based on the first two books of the Left Behind series. There were numerous differences, but overall they were relatively accurate. This one however is very different. I would almost describe this as being inspired by the Left Behind series, rather than based on it. Like the book, it's about World War 3, but it takes place quite differently. Only a handful of events are even remotely similar to events in the book. The double wedding is just about the only event that truly matches that of the book.This doesn't mean that the movie isn't any good. It contains a lot of interesting and exciting original events. Part of the reason why it's so different is probably because it only covers a very small portion of the book, so they had to come up with a lot of new events, which they did pretty well. But I think it would've been better if they had covered the third book instead.Be warned that this movie is a lot more violent than the first two. This is by far the darkest and most violent Christian film I've ever seen. Most of the movie (about 80%) takes place either at night, or in creepy dark rooms. There's not a lot of blood, but several people (both good and bad) are killed. It's almost hard to believe that a movie of this nature could be a true Christian film with a gospel message, but it definitely is, probably at least partly thanks to Kirk Cameron. I do enjoy it. I wish they could've done another sequel.

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.

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!