It's an Orthodox take on the "end times" and it's quite interesting at that. Reformed and evangelical readers who are moderately familiar with the end times arguments will find many of Engleman's arguments familiar. To the degree that evangelicals follow St Augustine's City of God, they will recognize and appreciate many of Engleman's arguments.
It would be a misnomer to call this "amillennialism." Such a category is worse than useless and tells you nothing, except that you aren't a dispensationalist. But it kind of looks like it. The difference between Engelman's eschatology and amillennialism, is that the latter is annoyingly vague on eschatology except in saying that we are in the "millennium" now. Engleman, however, is quite refreshing: he is frank and specific in a way that doesn't draw up time frames.
The book isn't perfect by any stretch. An editor could have at least made the endnotes aesthetically consistent. Quotations that are longer than four lines should be set apart in the text (especially if the quotation is a page long!). And much of the book is simply narrating bible passages (I suppose that's good). It's an easy read, all things considered. I'm beginning to see a pattern in his argumentation, from varying strength to weakness.
Strengths: to the degree he is following consistently to the monks, the church fathers, and Fr Seraphim Rose, the book maintains a stunning intensity and power in argument. This is why his view is better than amillennialism. He has the same basic structure as amillennialism, but can is specific in naming evil characters on the world scene.
Weaknesses: I'm not sure he is fully aware of some of the sources he is quoting. And some of his bible passages seem jarringly out of context. He is right to see Antichrist rebuilding the Temple and ruling the world from Jerusalem (presupposing, of course, a return of the Jews to Israel). Presumably, this is a bad thing for Christians. However, it doesn't make any sense to have marshalled all the beautiful passages where God himself promises to rebuild the temple for his people in the latter days (pp. 51-54). Engleman is an Orthodox guy. He follows the holy fathers, so he must be familiar with allegorizing and spiritualizing the text. Wouldn't it make more sense to see the temple as some sort of spiritual type or fulfillment of Christ? Isn't this what Orthodoxy believes anyway?
The book is a good read. It will spur the reader on to deeper holiness. My favorite part was Tsar Nicholas II as the restrainer of evil.