Deixados para Trás II: Comando Tribulação

The reason this movie does not meet many peoples' standards is simple...money. Movies that are so obviously Christian based will never bring in multi-millions of dollars. Because of this, people just interested in a monetary return would not be willing to risk their money. The people that do risk the money are generally those who feel so strongly about the message that they are willing to risk the money in order to voice the message to as many as possible. It is true, the goal of the producers, actors, etc, is to relay Jesus' own words. That He is the ONLY way to God. ANY other way is a dead end. The movie points out that each individual has a decision to make. We see that repeatedly throughout the film. We are also reminded that a 'not accept' is, by nature, a rejection. Although, the use of that word does seem rather unpalatable and final. It seems that if money is a concern, the movie makers have a choice...emphasize the message or the presentation of such.

This was a good movie as it takes us further into the teachings of Revelations and what is to come. We see the Tribulation Force coming together and working to defy the Anti-Christ. Also, Buck and Chloe getting together is nice and in the books, they wind up staying together. I look forward to the 3rd movie in this series as it is also a good tool in making others aware of what is to come after these last days. Great movie!

I JUST finished watching this movie about ten minutes ago. It's been a while since I've seen the first movie, or finished reading the tenth book, let alone the first or second. I believe I finished those in early April 2002, so it's been a while! Nevertheless, I enjoyed this film. I was extremely happy to see the scene at the Steele house with Buck and Chloe figuring out their misunderstanding, and the cookie scene!!! If I remember correctly that scene was meant to be in the first movie, but I'm not sure. It's been so long!

It was a good movie. I agree that it wasn't as fast-paced as the first movie, but I found myself excited and caught up in some of the smaller stories, especially that of Chris. His story seemed so real to me, and as I watched him twirl that gun I called out to Rayford "hurry up!"

The acting in this movie was phenomenal. I understand that due to time constraints and complexity the movie couldn't stick exactly to what the book had detailed. It was still a good movie on its own. The acting was wonderful, truly great. The plot dragged a few times, but was still good. The emotions were phenomenal.

I was a bit confused by the angelic woman though. I understand what she represented, but it seemed a bit un-natural. I did enjoy the dream sequence though, and Rayford tearing down the pictures of his family because it hurt him so badly. That was so close to my heart, having seen a family member go through that process.

It was a good film. I do recommend renting it, because it's a true joy. Though the movie has its flaws, it's still a solid movie. You begin to develop a relationship with the characters as they develop relationships with one another. I'll rate it a 7 or 8 out of ten. It was perfect, and had flaws, but still a solid movie.

After millions of people all over the earth mysteriously disappear, the world turns to a charismatic man to lead them, the new president of the U.N. (Gordon Currie). A small band of believers in Chicago recognize him as the Antichrist and work together as the "Tribulation Force" to save as many as they can. The group includes a renowned reporter (Kirk Cameron), a formidable pilot (Brad Johnson), his daughter (Janaya Stephens) and the pastor of their assembly (Clarence Gilyard Jr.).

Released in 2002, "Left Behind II: Tribulation Force" is the follow-up to "Left Behind" (2000) with the same cast, which was remade in 2014 with a bigger budget and truncated plot.

The story is based on prophetic accounts of end-time events from the Bible, e.g. the "Rapture" based on scriptures like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and Luke 17:24,34-35. Of course the Left Behind series is a fictional story and you don't have to believe in the Bible whatsoever to enjoy the movie for what it is, a "What if the Rapture really happened" mystery/drama/thriller. I don't believe in powerful androids that time-travel from the future, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying the Terminator flicks.

This sequel cost a little less than the 2000 film ($3.8 million) and is less busy story-wise. It has the confidence to take its time with convincing acting in challenging roles. I read the book and wondered how it could be made into a compelling movie because it's more dramatic than the first one; in other words, there's far less thrills until the last act, not to mention a considerable romantic subplot. The screenwriters did a great job of cutting out the fat and strategically adding some well-done evangelical bits, which aren't overdone. The apocalyptic ending of the book was obviously omitted because it would've added 20-30 minutes to the runtime and would've cost significantly more. The filmmakers did a good job of finding the right place to close.

Being shot in Toronto, I was wondering how they would pull off the Jerusalem sequences at the end, but they did a splendid job with the studio sets, particularly considering this is a low-budget flick.

The film runs 1 hour, 34 minutes. ADDITIONAL CAST includes Krista Bridges as the journalist's assistant and Chelsea Noble (Cameron's wife) as a flight attendant working for the Antichrist.

GRADE: B

It is interesting to approach a dogmatic movie w/out allowing my own personal values system to intrude on my aesthetic judgement - and it was in this spirit of adventure that I decided to watch this appalling excuse for a TV movie.

It is ironic, but I find that - for some reason - many of these flawed attempts at grand Christian filmmaking have much in common with their cinematic-theological antithesis : the seventies cycle of cheap, rip-off Satanic Posession movies. Primarily, derivative pulp thriller scripts with religion awkwardly shoehorned in, poor production values, hollow rhetoric, Soap Opera standard actors and absolutely no love of the medium whatsoever.

It is strange that this cycle of films has now created a cliche so strong that christian filmmaking now has such a bad reputation amongst moviegoers (whatever their religion), that the genre is a byword for pictures to avoid. This should not necessarily be the case - look at the big budget biblical epics of the 50s and 60s or the thoughtful (and occassionally chilling) deconstruction of fundamentalism in Bill Paxtons "Frailty".

Nevertherless - this movie is possibly one of the worst films ever made, right up (down) there with "24 Hours in London" & "Camp Blood" (the latter I only saw by accident - honest). Perhaps I'm being a little bit harsh, but you've got to be cruel to be kind and I think its time for this cycle of movies to be put to sleep.