The Fallen Reviews

Page 1 of 3
Super Reviewer
January 25, 2008
A squad of German soldiers is reinforced by the Italians in the final days of the war in the face of certain defeat by the advancing allies. The version of this film I saw was re-edited, removing the majority of the American involvement and renamed "The Final Sacrifice". For some reason. It's an interesting take on the WWII film focussing on the soldiers on the ground and their day to day lives as they bicker, reminisce and basically do what anyone else would do if they were stuck in muddy hole for days on end. Its multi-cultural aspect is the most interesting in that it shows the relationship between the Germans and their Italian "allies" who are treated as second class citizens and torn between a soldier's duty and loyalty to their conquered country. In a lot of ways it's more like a soap opera set during a war than a "war film" as such but thanks to solid writing and strong performances the characters and their relationships are completely believable and it engages through to a poignant ending. A story about ordinary people stuck in an extraordinary situation, The Final Sacrifice wisely avoids politics (let's face it, Nazis are hardly the most sympathetic protagonists) and concentrates on those caught in the middle of events bigger than themselves. A man can have the right motivations and be a "hero", even if his superiors have not.
Super Reviewer
½ July 18, 2007
Touted as 'Saving Private Ryan only better'. I dont know who wrote that but they clearly hadnt watched it. Unbeleivably poor.
½ December 28, 2013
The acting is so bad that I turned it off after about 20 minutes.
May 26, 2012

Have you ever had the feeling of déjà vu when watching a movie? Maybe you've seen a familiar scene from a movie before or you've seen an actor or actress say the same line in another film. Now, have you ever seen a movie that has been re-released in it's original state (with a few scenes cut) but re-named? I have and it's called The Final Sacrifice. The Final Sacrifice is supposed to be a new movie released in 2011 when in fact, it has been released before in 2004 under the name of The Fallen. With some research, I found out all of the cast and crew are exactly the same and nothing in The Final Sacrifice has been changed, except for a few scenes which were cut to make the movie ninety minutes long and to very slightly change the story by excluding a storyline that was in The Fallen. I have seen The Fallen but I decided to carry on watching The Final Sacrifice just in case there were any changes: there weren't any except for the obvious cut scenes which was an entire storyline involving the American troops. . This movie is just seriously bad on quite a few levels. It's understandable that this movie was run on little budget but there's no excuses for the actors being as terrible as they were. There were a few scenes when the acting was unforgettable for all of the wrong reasons. The Final Sacrifice had a terrible script, bad acting and a non-existant plot. It has characters with hardly any character development and you just couldn't care about any of them at all, no matter how much you tried or wanted to.

The dialogue in most of the scenes wasn't very good and was tedious, it didn't really grip you at all. The worst thing about The Final Sacrifice is not only the dragging story but the fact that it's named as a companion piece to The Fallen. Unless you call 're-releasing and renaming a movie that has already been released seven years ago with a few missing scenes' a companion piece, then it has hit the nail on the head. Everything about this movie is just terrible and it plods along very slowly with a couple of decent scenes. If you have seen The Fallen or if you own it on DVD, then I would skip this one as you will be sorely disappointed. Fans of war movies may enjoy this but even then, there would be a big chance you wouldn't like it. In the end, The Final Sacrifice has a couple of okay moments but the rest of the movie is pointless, tedious and overall abysmal.

This movie is something that everybody should avoid at all costs. The filming was made to look grainy, which is okay, but when it gets past the point that you're actually convinced you're watching it on VHS instead of on a DVD, then you know there's a problem. Not only that but the sound is also bad and the sound effects are pretty much a joke and unrealistic. A guy got punched in the stomach and it sounded like they took a sound effect from the videogame, Street Fighter IV. I like war movies but this has to be the worst one I have seen with no exaggeration. On the cover of The Fallen (same movie), somebody had said "Saving Private Ryan but better". Did somebody actually say that with a straight face? Saving Private Ryan is miles better than this! It makes me question whether the person who said this has actually seen Saving Private Ryan. Avoid!
½ June 24, 2011
Nicely done WWII film. Good story, not quite up to Private Ryan standards but a decent tale with some good war scenes for a low budget film. The scene with the girl without teetch is quality ha, didn't see that coming.
½ July 16, 2010
it's not the low budget, but the woeful story and shocking acting that makes it rotten. half the characters to tell the tale and perhaps it could've worked, it's all over the shop.
½ January 18, 2010
The film does well by showing an array of accounts in war, to show the German, Italian and American view points makes this film unique to most other war films. I appreciated how the film was giving a realistic representation through highlighting how each side was as scared as each other, the naiviety of the soldiers and the conflicts you would get in each side. The film does have moments of awe in it but you feel there is something missing throughout. The lack of money put into this movie and the abrupt ending are the downfall to the film but for a low budget film it is definitely something to be very proud of. I don't agree with the review on the front of the dvd case saying "Saving private ryan but even better".
½ November 26, 2009
Picked this film up in a bargain bin for £3.99, but I was robbed. It said on the cover, 'Like Saving Private Ryan, but better'. I should have realised there and then that they were having a laugh, and put it back on the shelf. Badly photographed, badly lit, uninspired locations, poorly acted, poorly propped, action and special effects from the '60s. The dvd cover described it as having a unique style that resembled news footage - that's because it appears to have been shot on 16mm. It was obviously a low budget production and looking at the 'bonus material', apparently financed by the director. Well, that is to be commended, because putting up the money to make a film, even a no budget film, has to be a daunting task. Can't help thinking the money would have been better spent down the pub with his mates every night for a couple of months. 'More compelling than anything put out by Hollywood A-listers' according to one review. I want to know who the hell these people are - why am I the only one that doesn't buy into this? Or am I missing something here? If this film is good, then Plan 9 From Outer Space was a masterpiece (which it was in a kind of warped way).
½ April 27, 2006
Well meaning, low budget independent war film. It has it's moments, but the low budget is too evident and it hurts the overall effect of the film. Most of the actors do well, but some are clearly not professionals. Poor score. Amateurish in most areas.
Page 1 of 3