input: Before watching this film I had heard a lot about it and certain scenes in the film, but listening wasn't doing it for me so I planned on watching it and wow! Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds make for an interesting group of individuals who are hell bent on canoing down the Cahulawassee river and the unfortunate series of events that transpires upon them all. The character development takes some time in enveloping the viewer with a better understanding of each person, but eventually you know these guys like they were your friend. The acting, dialogue is very very real, as close to reality as you can get for Hollywood acting. Reynolds character "Lewis" was interesting as a guy who comes off very tough but underneath the manly veneer lies a very soft and broken man (I was impressed with his performance!) Jon Voight seems to be the character thats on the spotlight the most, the unfortunate circumstances that seem to find him at every corner really mold and caste him into a different man at the end (his character transition was excellent). Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox really seem like the silly lunkheads that just like to joke around and don't seem to get too awful serious unless they have too, and they did... I really was amazed at Director Boorman's vision of Dickey's novel, very impressed. You cannot go your whole life without watching this film. I give it eight out of ten stars, extremely impressed.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.

I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.

THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.

CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.

The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.

As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I am embarrassed to say that I missed "The Mother" when it was in theaters. I saw it this evening on DVD. I gave it a 10 vote, one of the very few I have given here. This English independent is filmed with such great care and quality. It drew me in relentlessly. The story, low-keyed and purely human, is brutally honest and utterly absorbing, thanks to the acting of Anne Reid, Daniel Craig and Cathryn Bradshaw. The cinematography is stunning. The score is hard-wired to the plot. The storyline is epic, brilliantly clothed by writer Hanif Kureishi in mundane lives. This story addresses big issues with the subtlety of an impressionist painting. And some of those big issues are highly controversial, which probably explains the lack of awards won, despite many nominations. It is simply one of my all-time favorite films.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.

This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.

Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative