Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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

floyd beck 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!

to-54 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!

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!