Archangel

All the old clichés are rolled out early in this adaptation of Robert Harris's spy novel 'Archangel': surly Russians, an arrogant English hero, a garrulous American. There's also a certain amount of expository dialogue: in an early scene, a leading academic makes a speech to a conference in which he makes the dramatic revelation that Stalin was evil. 'Archangel' is certainly no 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', and the thin characterisation makes the early stages tedious to watch. But in the middle, it improves greatly, as a conventional but tautly scripted thriller begins to take shape. Sadly, the ending can't quite deliver on this promise; both because of the risible suggestion that megalomania is an inherited quality, and also because it is surely not (as the film suggests) the worship of Stalin's image that is the real problem in today's Russia, but rather, the social circumstances which make such an absurdity possible. Still, it's always interesting to get a glimpse of the great Russian north on camera, and lead actress Yekaterina Rednikova looks very sexy smoking a cigarette. But overall, this is routine stuff.

British Prof. Fluke Kelso (Daniel Craig) is an expert on Stalin. His lecture in Moscow is harassed by Stalin sympathizers. He is approached by an old man who claims to be a guard for Stalin during his death in 1953. He tells a shocking story that Stalin was killed by Soviet secret police chief Beria who then stole and buried Stalin's notebook.

This TV movie is just pre-Bond. Certainly, post-Bond Craig gives a different feel to this material. Putin was still relatively new after his first presidential term. Russia still has the reputation as a struggling state. The plot feels right although Stalin as a Jesus-like aspiration is still unreal. Russia wants a strong man, not a faded copy of one. It's not like there's something special about Stalin's bloodline. It's the old cliché villain playbook for Hitler's secret descendant. I was hoping for something more compelling in the notebook like Stalin was a CIA plant or maybe there is a secret stash of Kremlin gold. Despite the pulpy political thriller construct, this has enough tension and intrigue to make it work. At the very least, it's a good pre-Bond Craig.

This one started out well enough with a certain amount of pace and intrigue. The plot has promise. It is adapted from a Robert Harris novel - a western researcher discovers a secret notebook from Stalin which dark forces are prepared to kill to keep secret. There are some awful movie clichés - e.g. our hero loses the scent, but finds matchbook from a nightclub which leads to club where he meets the sultry love interest.

The movie was shown in two parts and the second episode trailer promised lots of exciting action. So I was prepared to overlook its faults and sat down to the second episode. However this just seemed to drag on. There was no real tension and when the action finally started it was terrible, lacking real tension and full of deus-ex-machina escapes. This movie has very little to recommend it. I expected better from BBC drama.

A great cast and premise goes absolutely nowhere. Characters are shallow and have no discernible arcs. The plot seems interesting at first but can't back up the initial promise. The visual style is bland and muddy throughout.

I kept thinking "this will come through with a great ending"... until about halfway through the final episode when I realized this was going to crash with a thud. Characters who seemed to be important started dying, and an ending that made everything that came before utterly useless. What a waste of time and talents.

This BBC series is actually a fine portrayal of the historical intrigues and factual discrepancies that surround the Stalinist era. To many students of history the story told about the end of Stalin's life has been officially tailored for minimum controversy. This series piques the conspiracy fanatic to see beyond the need for popular 007-esque shoot-em-up scenes from Daniel Craig, and delves more fully into the cultural dissonance and still-oppressed lifestyles in today's Russia. It takes the more informed audience to see that the story challenges a western viewer to understand life in today's Russia. To realize the present generational conflict among both anti- and pro-soviet era senior citizens and the contemporary Russian society who are trying to justify the need for genuine freedom, even if to understand mistakes of the past.