IN: Review: If you made the mistake of seeing the movie before reading the book, please don't give up on the series. I bought my first copy of any of the books in May of this year, and already I'm almost finished with book 10. I dare say the movie is a piece of trash that doesn't do the series even a sniff of justice. While "Left Behind: the movie" only vaguely follows the story of the "Left Behind" (the book), the characters aren't even close to accurate.

A few examples: Rayford never acts on his feelings for Hattie (he is about to when he's informed of the vanishings); Buck Williams is a blonde haired, magazine writer, not a TV reporter; Chloe is at Stanford, and a lot of the book details Rayford wondering if she 'survived'; Buck and Chloe don't meet until much later, at a meeting in New York, set up by Hattie; Irene and Raymie are never 'in the book,' rather just in Rayford's flashback thoughts; the roads are so jam packed with wrecks following the rapture that Rayford and Hattie have to helicopter back to the suburbs... etc, etc, etc...

And that's just from the first movie; they're about to release the third. Please, even if you didn't like the movies, give the book series a chance.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).

When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say "silent hill" ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of "stolen" themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those "i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version" kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has "hug me and i will love you forever" written on the stomach of it..
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This film just goes to prove that not every film made during the glory days of Hollywood is worth seeing. Just because you've got an excellent ensemble cast doesn't mean that this can overcome a script that was probably written by a chimp! Think about it--the film featured Richard Widmark, Lauren Bacall, Charles Boyer, Gloria Graham, Lillian Gish and Paul Stewart and yet it still was a bad film! The basic premise of the film isn't bad--a private psychiatric hospital where the staff are more screwed up than the patients! Also, the subplot involving the overworked husband and wife (Widmark and Graham) had a lot of promise. However, the script was handled with all the finesse and deftness of a drunk buffalo--with bellicose and way over the top scenes again and again in the film. In fact, it was less like a drama and more like a very bad episode of "General Hospital". Subtle, this film ain't!! Realistic, this film ain't!!

While most of the reason this film reeked was the awful script, but I also blame the producers as well for miscasting and misusing come veteran actors. For example, Paul Stewart may not be a household name but this character actor had exceptional talent--especially when playing gangsters in Film Noir movies. Yet here, Stewart is cast as a very nondescript psychiatrist with some bizarre European accent--it just didn't work since this was well outside his acting range and his character was totally undeveloped and one-dimensional. Also, Charles Boyer just seemed hopelessly miscast and totally out of place. Seeing this fine romantic actor as a psychiatrist in the heartland of America just seemed bizarre.

Overall, this is a rather awful film. It is very watchable in a train wreck sort of way but it certainly isn't very pretty. My wife and I disliked much of the movie but also felt it could have been very good had the writing been competent.

PS--In a case of art imitating life, Oscar Levant played one of the patients. In real life, the brilliant Levant spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative