A Thief in the Night

I'm truly embarrassed to admit that I suffered through this film four or five times, while growing up in a Baptist church and attending a WASPish Protestant elementary school. One of the most abhorrent motion pictures ever made (second only to Lamont Johnson's reprehensible "Lipstick" back in 1976), "A Thief in the Night" has -- sadly -- become a Bible belt staple -- one of the only "Evangelical Christian cult films." How wildly popular is it among conservative Christians? Let's put it this way: one could walk into any "film night" at a midwestern Baptist church during the eighties and nineties and catch this motion picture, nine times out of ten (until John Schmidt took over by making a series of contemporary Christian films that actually remain watchable to this day -- "The Wait of the World" (1989), etc.)

I fail to understand how anyone could even -sit through- "A Thief in the Night" (let alone heap unqualified praise onto the film). Not only are the production values, the direction, the 'performances,' the script, the music, and the editing ludicrous, but one can imagine the film feeling dated even back in 1972. (The characters seem to be walking around on another planet).

As other IMDB users imply in their critiques, it might be possible for a film of this nature to evolve into a secular cult item -- a joke, to be screened as a secular midnight movie and at 70's cinematic shlock fests, ala "Toomorrow," the mysterious and elusive "Darktown Strutters," and "BJ Lang Presents." Ahh, such is not the case. The "filmmakers" rendered this impossible by dampering "A Thief in the Night" with some of the sourest, most depressing dramatic overtones in movie history and ensuring that it can never (NEVER) be *enjoyed* as entertaining camp. From first frame to last, it remains repulsively gloomy, angry, and depressing. This, from a film about Christ's second coming -- a subject which should impart a message of hope, not of fear.

In short: nothing fun about this one, folks. It's a *miserable* experience, and it may even fall into the same category as "The Incredible Torture Show," about which, Danny Peary once wrote, "If any film deserves to be banned, this deserves strong consideration."

The worst sidelight of the film: the terrible light it continues to shed on conservative Christians, and on the Revelation of St. John per se. "Left Behind" (1999), starring Kirk Cameron and based on the bestselling book series (a film I have not seen), covers the same ground and is evidently far more watchable.

Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years.

This film follows the belief of certain fundamentalist Christians that an event known as the "rapture" will take place soon which will cause all true believers to disappear from the earth all at once. In that regard, "Patty Myers" (Patty Dunning) is one of the many who is not taken up into heaven because she is not a Christian. However, her husband, "Jim Wright" (Mike Niday) was recently converted and he has disappeared. So has her friend, "Jenny" (Colleen Niday). On the other hand, her other two friends, "Diane Bradford" (Maryann Rachford) and her new husband "Jerry Bradford" (Thom Rachford) were also left behind and like Patty, they are now forced to deal with another fundamentalist event known as the "tribulation" which is essentially a hell on earth. Now, as I stated earlier, this film follows a controversial belief of a certain segment of the Christian faith. As such, there may be many people who may not understand or appreciate this type of film. Likewise, it is a low-budget production geared more for an evangelical outreach than for general entertainment purposes. Because of that, the acting is very basic and the dialogue will probably strike many as being a bit corny. Additionally, as the hairstyles and clothes clearly indicate, it is definitely dated to a time-period (late 60's & early 70's) which may not appeal to a more modern audience. Even so, this film created a stir within its targeted audience and resulted in 3 sequels: "A Distant Thunder", "Image of the Beast" and "The Prodigal Planet". In short, if a person can get beyond some of the peculiarities I mentioned earlier, they might find this film interesting in its own way. And while I am able to keep an open mind about the overall subject of the film, from a critical and objective perspective I have to rate it as slightly below average.

This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.

Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.

This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time.

Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe.

Since I am a Christian believer and that includes believing in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and that He is my Personal Savior and Lord due to His Sacrifice at the Cross and coming back to Eternal Life after being raised from the dead as well as believing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - what can I really say about this particular film?

I think the film has a powerful message, even though I have mixed feelings about its delivery. I think people should be converted through the knowledge of the free gift of Salvation provided by the Sacrifice at the Cross and Christ's subsequent resurrection. I have mixed feelings about the concept of "being scared into Heaven". But perhaps some people need to be. The idea that evil [Antichrist] can just take over the entire world after the Christian believers have been removed from the earth is scary indeed. In the past, evil has taken over entire nations such as in the Roman Empire, Napoleon's France, Hitler's Germany, and Soviet Russia. Evil continues to inflict nations in different parts of the world. Thinking about this on a worldwide scale is disturbing.

The First Coming of Christ is prophesied in several Old Testament Books. In the Book of Micah, it says that the Messiah [Jesus] will be born in Bethlehem. In another example, the Book of Daniel talks about "49 years plus 434 years" which are 483 years from the time of the Persian Empire in which the Jewish exiles were allowed back to rebuild the City of Jerusalem. Theoretically, this time reckoning brings us up to the week in which the Messiah Jesus was crucified (around 32 or 33 AD). And this is based on writings made centuries before the fact !!

The Second Coming of Christ is also described in both the New and Old Testaments such as in the Book of Revelation and in the Book of Daniel. In the last part of the Book of Daniel, to paraphrase scripture, it describes a great time interval passing until "knowledge [education] and travel have increased", perhaps describing the centuries between the times described in the Book of Daniel up though our 21st century, and perhaps beyond. After this has transpired, to paraphrase again, "the Angel Michael stands up to fight against satanic forces and the dead are risen, some to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt". There appear to be double references in the Book of Daniel describing events about Antiochus (the Greek "Antichrist" who desecrated the Hebrew Temple) during the second century B.C. , once again, centuries before the fact, and a catastrophe [world war?] yet future to our times (the Antichrist mentioned in the film). Yet, the Bible refers to the details of these events to be sealed knowledge until the time of the end. This great time interval mentioned above could possibly correspond in part to Church History as we have known it as well as to the rise of the modern nations as we know them today. Now, Church History is approximately 2,000 years old. The question that we have is how much longer this time period will continue prior to the Second Coming of Christ. As mentioned above, the answer to this question according to the Bible remains sealed.

Once again, the writer suggests, much of this knowledge is sealed up until the time of the end "when education and travel have increased". However, historically, more knowledge has become available over the past century and a half than all of the past nineteen centuries put together. This is particularly true of scientific knowledge. Other signs that theologians talk about is the resurrection of the state of Israel and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East which appears to resemble some of the situations described in the Old Testament such as in the Book of Daniel. Whether or not we have reached the real time of the end (such as within our lifetimes) remains unknown. Why ? The Bible says this knowledge is sealed until the time of the end. There are some details that remain hidden from us about the Second Coming of Christ. Even Jesus said that He did not know, to paraphrase, " nor the Angels in Heaven, but the Father only ".

What this means is that we should continue to anticipate the Return of Christ while doing the Christian walk in our daily lives.

Speculation about the Second Coming of Christ goes back centuries.

Much of this speculation has caused a great deal of tragedy and misunderstanding, especially in the dangerous practice of date-setting. Again, one must emphasize that even Jesus did not know when He is coming back, but only the Father knows. In addition, one must be especially careful about the danger of "adding or subtracting" from the Bible. The Book of Revelation in the last chapter gives a very stern warning about tampering with God's Word.

However, just like one can tell by changes in the weather that spring is coming, one can tell from world events that human history seems to be coming to some sort of climax. Precise knowledge of whether this is really so or not remains sealed, though, as the Bible says. This is where Faith comes in.

The term "Rapture" does not appear in the Bible, but its concept is hinted at in the First Book of Corinthians in which, to paraphrase St. Paul,"he tells us a secret - we will all not die, but in the twinkling of an eye, we will all be changed into new bodies". Furthermore, in the first Book of Thessalonians, the Lord will come "like a thief in the night (sound familiar?) in which believers who have died will be raised and those believers that are still living will all meet the Lord in the air". There are different interpretations of these passages, especially in terms of sequence of events, but this is where the concept of the Rapture comes from in the movie.

Films such as this raise a certain amount of controversy about interpreting the Bible, but that is the point. It is supposed to make a person think.

If the Old Testament turned out to be accurate about the predictions about the First Coming of Christ, it stands to reason that the New Testament (as well as the Old) is accurate as well about His Life on earth as well as His eventual future return.

Blessings in Christ to everyone,

Dan Basinger