Left Behind II: Tribulation Force

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

I'm amazed that someone would be so naive as to think that a movie trying to present the good news of the gospel to a world that is already saturated with the polluted wells of mass profanity, immorality and violence for violence's sake would criticize a film for NOT having these features in it.

In case the reviewer is interested, the Bible presents many accounts of people who sinned for our learning and instruction so that we wouldn't repeat the same errors without giving pornographic or explicit depictions that do more to encourage people to seek drinks from polluted wells of ignorance than direct them to the water of life, found only in Jesus Christ, who stated that once a person truly drank of the water of eternal life He gives will never thirst again.

I agree that not all the acting in these films is "A list Hollywood acting". Much of what is in Oscar winning movies these days is not "A list Hollywood acting" either.

People are entitled to their opinion that perhaps these filmmakers are relying too much on the message and not on the acting. I think many films rely too much on filthy language, big effects, and sensuality with much less plot and storyline than is shown in the "Left Behind" movies.

So if you want more raunchy supposedly 'realistic' language and sin depicted, there are plenty of other movies out there to choose from. There is less and less originality in film today and more and more depending on moving the emotions or visceral than on reaching the mind of someone.

I also wish the movies had stuck more to the original story. The same as I wished that the Lord of the Rings stuck more to the story and Oscar winners such as Chariots of Fire and Ghandi which also deviated from the stories. None of John Gresham's novels transferred to film stick to the story either. (Runaway Jury changed cigarette industry into the gun industry for example).

Show me a film that is entirely sticking to the story and I'll show you an author that wrote a screenplay and not a book. :-) They are two different mediums and very rarely is the screenplay also written by the book's author.

I rated this highly for what it attempted to do. I think the first part did not do very well in the first half and improved in the second half. This movie wasn't perfectly even either, but it did attempt to get a message that was in the book out in a way that was entertaining. Apparently even to those who thought it was funny.

For the one that found it funny: did you equally laugh and find funny Tom Hanks in "Castaway" for performing the longest known commercial for FedEx in it's history?

How about "Million Dollar Baby" for it's showing a 32 year old woman who can't box a lick and then supposedly becomes a one round wonder only to be taken out by a dirty boxer and left as a vegetable who no longer has an ounce of fight in her? She has the guts to tell her no good family to take a flying leap and then has no guts to live?

These were hit movies, perhaps with better acting, but equally funny because the message outshone any script or plot and many people came away with the impression of "That Fed Ex movie" or "that Right to Die" flick.

I guess these "Left Behind" films aren't alone in being funny or having script and other errors that for some can overwhelm the message, eh?

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.

I felt the first Left Behind film was such a corny lark (if people leave behind dentures and hip replacements, does that mean they also leave behind breast implants when they get Raptured?) that I had to see what Kirk Cameron and crew were up to for their second turn at bat.

I will state this as clearly as possible - nothing happens in this film, absolutely 100% nothing. There's no progression, no forward momentum, nothing. The only thing you could classify as character development is the believers patronizingly preaching to the uninformed. Does anyone want to get their religion from the kid from Growing Pains? The plot consists of our four left behind-ers forming a group (Tribulation force, unite!) that wants to warn the world that the leader of the UN is the, wait for it, Antichrist. This plan goes nowhere. Two of the Tribulation force members contribute nothing to the cause except wistful praying.

The crux of the film is on a learned Rabbi who is to reveal to the whole wide world that Jesus is actually the Messiah. In what universe would a single Rabbi saying something about religion have the world's eyes and ears? And why would everyone systematically accept one man's words as the divine truth? If this was the case couldn't we end this boring movie with Cameron yelling, "I loves me the Jesus" and be done with it? I enjoy the Rabbi's slow reveal in his speech. He starts talking about how he's proven who the Messiah is (though we see nothing of his findings) and says it's a man who was born in Bethlehem and betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Then he says it's Jesus. And the audience literally gasps. This whole plot device couldn't be any more insulting.

Overall Left Behind 2 is far worse than the original film, and that is something of an accomplishment of itself. I challenge you to stay awake and interested into what's going on, because there may be more nothing going on in this film than in the entire history of cinema. Cameron is the best the world of journalism has to offer? And anyone else notice that if you're not Western European in ethnicity you're either evil or dead wrong with your religious beliefs. Take that 4/5 of the world!

There are so many laugh-out-loud moments (like the explanation for millions instantaneously vanishing as "nuclear radiation," are we in 1955 all over again?) but the largest drawback of Left Behind 2 is how horrifically boring it is. The Omega Codes were equally atrocious but campy and slightly entertaining in an I-Can't-Believe-People-Spent-Money-On-This kind of way. Left Behind 2 on the other hand has no sense of humor and no sense of style, let alone competent pacing, directing, and acting. I know sixth graders that could blow the socks off these Left Behind thespians.

I can think of no possible reason anyone should every view this film at any time. I have never been more bored, and I fell asleep during The Thin Red Line three separate times when I saw it in theaters. The only reason you would recommend this film is if you wanted that person to die of boredom.

For my money, the DVD menu screen is the funniest and most entertaining part of the film.

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.