Angels Fallen: Warriors of Peace

"Angels Fallen: Warriors of Peace" attempts to reimagine the supernatural warfare theme introduced in the 2010 film "Legion," but falls short in several key areas. Both movies center around celestial beings fighting to prevent the apocalypse, with a mix of action, horror, and biblical elements. However, "Legion" delivers a more cohesive narrative, driven by a stronger script and better-developed characters.

In "Angels Fallen: Warriors of Peace," the plot feels derivative and lacks the tension that made "Legion" memorable. The characters in "Legion," particularly Michael and Gabriel, are more compelling, with their moral dilemmas adding depth to the story. In contrast, the characters in "Angels Fallen" are somewhat flat, relying heavily on action sequences to carry the film rather than meaningful character development.

While "Angels Fallen" boasts impressive special effects and ambitious fight scenes, they often overshadow the story rather than enhance it. The film's pacing is also uneven, with moments of intense action followed by lulls that disrupt the flow. In comparison, "Legion" maintains a consistent pace, blending action and suspense more effectively.

The dialogue in "Angels Fallen" sometimes feels forced and lacks the gravitas needed for a film of this genre. "Legion," on the other hand, benefits from sharper writing that balances the supernatural elements with human drama, making it a more engaging and emotionally resonant experience.

Ultimately, while "Angels Fallen: Warriors of Peace" may appeal to fans of supernatural action films, it doesn't quite live up to the standard set by "Legion." If you're looking for a more compelling story with stronger characters and a better execution of similar themes, "Legion" is the superior choice.

Gabriel (Josh Burdett) is an Iraq War vet who is struggling with his war experience and lost his faith. He is visited by the angel Balthazar (Cuba Gooding Jr.) who is recruiting him for a battle to save the world.

I do wonder if this is a sly under-the-table religious film. Apparently, there is a first movie before this which is far worst. My initial take is that Cuba is looking rough. It's been a rough few years for him and I can see it in his face. As for the lead, I don't know who Josh Burdett is. All I know is that he is not the leading man type. The whole cast is a little below requirement level. The CG monsters are better than expected. The directing is weak and the writing is bad. Mostly this needs better actors.

Fallen Angels: Warriors of Peace has the same vibe and spirit of those Universal direct-to-video films. It has more going on under the hood with its biblical references and at the very least, it isn't trying to be one of those terrible Christian propaganda films that no one watches and are only successful because of the grift from that sect of customers and creatives. This is just a middling action film with some decent action and a few recognizable faces that could be doing better, but have found themselves here like some chosen warriors to be the next batch of direct-to-video stars. It's a shame, because some of these actors have been in better stuff, but that's just how things go from time to time. If you like the vibe of those sy-fy channel original movies or are a specialist in direct-to-video schlock, then give it a watch. Otherwise, you can just go watch that 90s Arnold Schwarzenegger film End of Days or the Keanu Reeves-starred Constantine. This is easily a film I would watch once on a lark and then never again.

The whole storyline had great potential, with the characters bond, and the monsters they are yet to go up against, the film seems to have something viewers would love to see. Unfortunately, the whole film was awful. The acting was terrible, and the fight scenes could have had a lot more, well, fighting in them. Instead, I feel the power rangers would be more interesting to watch. I'm actually quite gutted and disappointed really because I really wanted this to be a great success as the storyline is brilliant. Instead I deeply feel it is a great flop, but only because the acting was just awful.

When will I learn to check how many people have contributed to the average IMDB rating? I saw 6.5, which is comfortably above my tolerance threshold. I had also seen two pretty glowing reviews (in retrospect, I'm thinking possibly relatives of people involved in the making of the film?), so I dove. Three minutes in, however, I went back to see only 25 (at that time) people had rated it. More friends and family of cast and crew, I guess.

Sure the script was laughable, but the performances were wretched! The dialogue is painful, the main characters stare off vacantly much of the time (perhaps the actors were wishing they were anywhere but on the set), and the special effects weren't very....special. I don't think it's worth going into any more detail than that. Take your chances if you must, but I recommend a hard pass-unless you like that campy, it's so bad it's good, kind of thing.