70 reviews
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.
I was raised in a "very Christian" household since birth. I was saved before I saw this movie and the rest of the series and was forced to watch it in a youth group at my church. This movie was highly disturbing. I saw it when I was about 12 years old and literally had nightmares about it for years. I used to lay awake in bed and listen for the sounds of my mom's footsteps upstairs. If I didn't hear her footsteps, I would sneak upstairs to make sure she hadn't been raptured. I used to pray so hard every night for salvation because I was terrified of Jesus forgetting me. This is definitely not something I will show to my kids until they are much older, if at all. It took me years to shake the fear that this movie gave me.
My mother used to make us watch this movie and movies from this series every New Year's Eve when we were small kids (maybe 5). To say that this movie traumatized me as a 5 year old is an understatement. I couldn't stop thinking about it and talked about it so much that even my friends who had not seen it were terrified. I had nightmares for at least 15 years and I think that making children see these movies is child abuse. I still dread New Years Day because of this and although I know this was just a movie, I still have a sense of dread for the future that I've never been able to shake. If I were not brought up to think that this was true and had this shoved down my throat, I wouldn't found the bad acting and ridiculous plot entertaining, but being told at 5 that this is what is going to happen to you can cause lifelong trauma.
- lory-24034
- Aug 7, 2015
- Permalink
- jennifer-gaskill
- Aug 7, 2022
- Permalink
I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many "christians" about the "mark of the beast"and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma.
- snoopdoc15
- Jul 3, 2009
- Permalink
- BandSAboutMovies
- Sep 24, 2019
- Permalink
I was forced to watch this whole series of films as a young child and I was told they were REAL! Talk about child abuse. I would have been less frightened of Dracula or Frankenstein. This series is only good for people who believe in this ridiculousness and who want to indoctrinate their children into believing the same. Besides the obvious issues associated with brainwashing and indoctrination, there's also the bad acting, bad writing, and BAD "special effects". They are just all around terrible, terrible movies. Yes, believable (and horrifying) to a kid, but I can't imagine a grown-up buying into this shlock. Although, I must say, that I would be interested in seeing them today, as an adult. They might have a certain midnight/cult movie feel to them.
- beltanegoddess
- Oct 16, 2008
- Permalink
Long before Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins would shake the world of the Christian subculture (and make millions in the process) with the LEFT BEHIND books, MARK IV Pictures, the Christian film distribution company of the Billy Graham evangelistic association, gave us this masterwork. What I love most about this genre is its incredible attention to detail, sitting in a living room. Instead of taking us to the dramatic scenes of this "post-rapture" tribulation, we sit in the living room, hearing about it on the news because the filmmakers can't afford to show it. The film's premise is grounded in Pre-Millenial, pre-Tribulation eschatalogy, believing that Christ comes once for the secret taking of the true church, and then comes again at the end of the seven years of hell on earth. What used to terrify me in junior high now makes me laugh. The intriguing adventures of Patty and her journey throughout the tribulation (and two of the film's three sequels) tells her remarkable story of unbelief and ultimately damnation. I hate to admit it, but I still thoroughly enjoy watching this. It even has the SAME EXACT score of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think I'm the only person in history to make that observation.
- nothingbutmyharp
- Jan 26, 2005
- Permalink
I'm a lot more forgiving of low budget films than I am of those with $200 million+ budgets. After all, a big budget movie SHOULD have top notch actors, special effects, etc. A THIEF IN THE NIGHT was made for under 70k, the acting is spotty, and the audio is choppy as different scenes have different background sounds. However, to the film's credit, it's more interested in the story being told than it is in HOW the story is told. The filmmakers believe what they're saying (I happen to agree with them) and that earnestness shows through the budget limitations.
I've noticed many reviewers mentioning the film's intent is to "scare" viewers into salvation. According to prophecy, the end times WILL be scary. Helping people understand the choice they need to make now is important, and ATITN carries that sense of heightened awareness from beginning to end. Is it manipulative? Maybe, but most movies manipulate viewers in one way or another. I suspect the real pushback from viewers of this movie has to do with people who don't want - or don't care - to hear about their sinful nature.
I've noticed many reviewers mentioning the film's intent is to "scare" viewers into salvation. According to prophecy, the end times WILL be scary. Helping people understand the choice they need to make now is important, and ATITN carries that sense of heightened awareness from beginning to end. Is it manipulative? Maybe, but most movies manipulate viewers in one way or another. I suspect the real pushback from viewers of this movie has to do with people who don't want - or don't care - to hear about their sinful nature.
- strangenstein
- Mar 8, 2021
- Permalink
Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.
Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.
Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5.
Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.
Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5.
- Angry_Arguer
- Nov 6, 2003
- Permalink
This movie is used to by religious organization to provoke fear in little kids so they will believe in Christianity. In some ways, this movie is a tool to brainwash mentally vulnerable children. Many religious schools show this to little kids, because it is easier to brainwash kids at ages between 5-10.
- kevinllululala
- Nov 17, 2017
- Permalink
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.
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.
The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.
If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.
Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid.
If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.
Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid.
- David_G_Young
- Sep 7, 2002
- Permalink
First of all, I saw this movie when I was 7 years old at a Christian Scholl I attended. Needless to say that I was scared out of mind. Not because it was scary but because the content.Cmon...I was 7. Anyway, the cinematography was pretty bad and the acting was cheesy. That's very bad considering that I was only 7 and I remember that. The one thing that still haunts me is that dreadful song "I wish we all were ready" where the chorus ends with "...you were left behind". I wouldn't suggest seeing this one. I probably will, just for nostalgic reason. Besides, I'm sure the remake is much better. The best part of this movie though, has to be when everyone "dissapears"; vacant cars crashing, lawnmowers running on their own...pretty hilarious.
- Jovanyfelix
- Sep 13, 2006
- Permalink
After I'd heard of it many years ago, I saw this movie yesterday afternoon on DVD and it proved to be a fair Sunday afternoon movie for Christians but nothing more :-). I am a new born Christian however I believe that the rapture will take place after the great tribulation (the movie teaches that it will happen before it). I don't like the way the film tries to scare the audience, I don't think that it is an effective way of preaching the gospel. But let's see the movie itself as a movie, a story,a piece of cinematography, even if it's not so easy. Yes, it was dated at the time it was made. Yes, the happy marriage pictures are greasy. Yes the plot reminds me of some low budget B-movies from the '50-s (actually, Russell S. Doughten Jr. produced The Blob too). But it's not boring at all. My presumption was that it will be very amateurish, made with a cheap cam by somebody who knows nothing about movie-making with ridiculous acting by his brethren in the local church. But this film has well done cut and cinematography. The music of the Fishmarket Five is fine, unlike the classical "suspense" themes. The escaping scenes are exciting. This is the type of movie you could be curious about, but you know that you will not enjoy it. Just like the films of Ed Wood.
- idellandrew
- Jul 3, 2020
- Permalink
I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them.
- pageantqueen97
- Mar 24, 2005
- Permalink
Obviously, there wasn't a huge budget for this film which definitely hindered the production. But the story and ending were so brutal that they made up for a lot. I mean brutal on the level of Ju Dou and other (great) Chinese films. I first saw this when I was 14 years old, I ran home and begged God to forgive me for everything...
I wonder....if I never was subjected to this movie....would I have had a better life?? Maybe...but maybe not. Not only was I subjected to this fearful movie at too young of an age to understand I could choose not to be frightened by it...it was shown to me by adults whom I was taught to trust. First by adults at church...second by my own family...afterwards being told by my grandma how important salvation was else you get left behind.... adults will use emotional, manipulative, FEAR tactics to make you be a good little kid,,,,but using the all powerful big guy upstairs to do your dirty work is just plain lazy...and emotionally abusive to kids.
I don't understand believers who have commented on this movie saying being scared into salvation at 7 is a good thing. Really??? Did you watch this movie at 7? Did you have nightmares that Jesus left you behind, all alone, in the dark, because you were never good enough? "If you were truly saved then you would have no fear" they will say.....perhaps....but at 7!!! Before what most theologians say is the age of accountability?
It made me see god in only one light...an all knowing invisible being who existed only to frighten children into extreme fear of being left all alone by themselves one day when he comes back. Not until I was a young adult could I see god in any different light than this.
To be fair, I wonder if the 70s were a very scary, dark place for Christians. I remember feeling the fear all around.... I suppose the adults were scared too. We were getting our asses kicked in Vietnam, we were first shown how terribly corrupt our president (Nixon) could be, when America was supposed to always be "the good guy"...the Cold War was still in full swing. Maybe that's why this guy chose to make such a scary movie. He was capturing that deep subconscious fear of all Christians at the time. Christians thought the only solution was to spread their fear to others and their children in some twisted way to make everything all better through Jesus. Yet we're all still here...50 years later...surviving MANY failed "rapture" prophecies (pat robertson, Hal Lindsey, Harold camping,...) yet many still want to believe this second coming crap. Let's put our thinking caps on for a change...read a little about human psychology. The second coming prophets have either huge egos to fill, money to make, fame to gain, or combinations of all three.
I don't understand believers who have commented on this movie saying being scared into salvation at 7 is a good thing. Really??? Did you watch this movie at 7? Did you have nightmares that Jesus left you behind, all alone, in the dark, because you were never good enough? "If you were truly saved then you would have no fear" they will say.....perhaps....but at 7!!! Before what most theologians say is the age of accountability?
It made me see god in only one light...an all knowing invisible being who existed only to frighten children into extreme fear of being left all alone by themselves one day when he comes back. Not until I was a young adult could I see god in any different light than this.
To be fair, I wonder if the 70s were a very scary, dark place for Christians. I remember feeling the fear all around.... I suppose the adults were scared too. We were getting our asses kicked in Vietnam, we were first shown how terribly corrupt our president (Nixon) could be, when America was supposed to always be "the good guy"...the Cold War was still in full swing. Maybe that's why this guy chose to make such a scary movie. He was capturing that deep subconscious fear of all Christians at the time. Christians thought the only solution was to spread their fear to others and their children in some twisted way to make everything all better through Jesus. Yet we're all still here...50 years later...surviving MANY failed "rapture" prophecies (pat robertson, Hal Lindsey, Harold camping,...) yet many still want to believe this second coming crap. Let's put our thinking caps on for a change...read a little about human psychology. The second coming prophets have either huge egos to fill, money to make, fame to gain, or combinations of all three.
- pokemondream
- Mar 31, 2021
- Permalink
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.
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.
- nsouthern51
- Sep 27, 2002
- Permalink