End Times Part 1- “Left Behind” the recently released movie.
This entry is focused solely on reviewing the 2014 film. I
will post other entries in the future that will be focused more on my critiques
of Christian films as a whole. They might also expound upon the history of
Christian films. There is not enough space here for much else besides the
review of this particular film.
As always I apologize for my typos and grammatical errors.
I was quite surprised to learn, as both a Christian and a
movie lover that a reboot of “Left Behind” (or LB for short) was in the works. The
first film, released in 2000, was so inadequate and so universally panned that
one of the authors of the books sued the filmmakers to reclaim the rights to
the story and characters. But then I was shocked to learn Academy Award winner
(and one of my favorite actors) Nicolas Cage was set to star. The budget was set at $16 million. Nothing to sneeze at
but I had my doubts as to whether that would be enough to present post-Rapture chaos fully. The Rapture presented here is
when all the true Christians of the world disappear in a single moment,
plunging the world into chaos.
Let’s cut to the chase. Is this a good movie? No, it’s not.
Average? That’s really stretching it.
It means well. I was pleasantly surprised by some of the aspects of the film, but I cannot recommend seeing it unless,
well, you’re truly open-minded enough to see its few bright spots.
OK, let’s talk about those few bright spots before we move
on to the not so bright. In my opinion,
the filmmakers made a smart choice when they decided to focus solely on the
Rapture and the hours after it. The film isn’t
told in “real time” but it comes pretty close. The film’s storylines are based on only the first chunk of the novel.
The novel continues past that story- following storylines that occur over weeks
and weeks. Major characters are introduced. But the novel has all the time in the world
to tell its story. In my opinion, the
novel cannot be adequately adapted within the length of most feature films. The
first LB movie covered all the major events of the novel, but it was simply too much story to jam into 96 minutes. I’m of the opinion that only a well-funded mini-series
could depict the entire novel in complete detail. “Band of Brothers” is a good
example. Or perhaps the ideal medium would be a television series; similar to
the way HBO has adapted George R.R. Martin’s books into the “Game of Thrones”
TV series. The Rapture and its immediate aftermath are more than enough to fill
up this 110-minute feature film.
I’m not usually a fan of a movie that detours greatly from
the source material. For instance, the 2005
film “Left Behind: World at War” is supposedly based on the last chunk of the
novel “Left Behind: Tribulation Force.”
And yet it essentially tells a brand new story that bears little
resemblance to the source material. But I see the deviations taken in this LB
film to be in the best interests of the movie. Expanding the beginning
of the novel meant condensing many events while creating new ones in order to
flesh out characters and move the plot along quickly. I found many such plot
points interesting and useful.
The most surprising aspect was something rare in most
Christian films. This film started to
paint a truthful view of many Christians, such as their lack of Biblical
knowledge (beyond simply quoting the Bible) and their brazen arrogance in the
face of non-believers. But the film does not go far enough in my opinion. A
major risk needed to be taken- the film should have made a more concentrated
effort to expose the idea of believing in God as fraudulent and illogical. The case must be
made for denying His existence or at least His holy nature. Much like how
American History X manipulated
language in support the idea of white supremacy. Its case was presented so well because its manipulation of language was so
masterful. One could see how a small group of people might buy into it. It’s
terrifying to hear. Such a plot device
would make a rebuttal in favor of God (presented later in the film) much more powerful.
That is as long as this rebuttal was
thoughtfully presented. This film’s rebuttal was weaker than weak. Am
I comparing racism with atheism? No. Not in the LEAST. I’m only pointing
out how the use of language in films can be used to make any idea make sense. Again,
I’m speaking of plot devices.
I found the sets adequate. And the chaos immediately
following the rapture was the best I’d see so far even if the budget limited its
scope and its special effects (which were really awful at times).
OK, onto some of the major disappointments. By far the most
glaring example is the writing. Poor writing
is a common issue in just about every Christian film that comes to mind. The script
was written by Paul LaLonde and John Patus. LaLonde is a former social worker who
has started various film studios dedicated to films about the End Times. He and
Patus’s resumes are solely focused on Christian films. Remember when I said that
one of the authors
of the novel sued the filmmakers of the first movie? LaLonde and Patus were two of those filmmakers. They were involved with writing the original script.
Yet somehow they were allowed write the
screenplay for the new film as well. That’s just asking for trouble. The script
was an improvement over the previous one,
but at the end of the day these guys are just not talented writers. The dialogue had almost no subtext to it. No
dramatic flair at all. In a word, it was utilitarian
at best. Serious and complex plot events do not automatically inspire
amazing dialogue.
The writing naturally
affects the next disappointment, the acting. Was it good? No. Are the
actors solely at fault for that? No. As an actor perhaps I’m too sympathetic,
but I felt most of the actors did as good a job as possible with the weak dialogue they were forced to say. Most of the
actors are experienced enough to know how to handle themselves. Cage showed
honest inner turmoil but even he can only do so much. Though he is the film’s star, most of the focus fell on the shoulders of Cassi Thomson. I
believed her emotions, but again she could only do so much. I could tell she has
talent. And so the best moments of the film came when the actors were allowed
to act without speaking. I can’t imagine the actors were aided very much by
director Vic Armstrong, who has almost no
background in directing; he’s mostly worked in stunts and second-unit
filming.
The next disappointment is also a very common issue in many
Christian films- the music. I admit I don’t always pay attention to the film’s music,
but that’s because most film scores and soundtracks blend almost effortlessly
into the fabric of the film. I recently re-watched “Lawrence of Arabia” and its
sweeping score was a great guide through all the numerous events of that film. The
music in this film, as in its predecessor, is loud, jarring and distracting. It
too lacks subtext. This film's music acts not as a guide but instead as an
interruption that weakens an already weak film.
Unlike most of the reviews from critics I’ve read so far, I
take no pleasure in criticizing this film. Nor will I expound upon its numerous
shortcomings with such overwhelming negativity. This review is already longer
than I intended it to be.
Movie-goers, no matter what denomination they belong to (if
any), deserve better. Much better. Will movie-goers ever get it? Perhaps. But
I think that will only come when the bar for artistic substance in filmmaking
exceeds or at least matches that of the story itself. Just making a film
inspired by Christian beliefs is not enough. Films demand not just a good story.
Films demand a good story told well. Films are art. Art does not come
easy. It’s not automatically part of
every film. Audiences demand more. And they have the right so demand such
excellence.
But that too is a topic for a future post.