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.

As a big fan of history and Russian culture, I was excited to watch this movie but didn't expect very much from a TV production. Useless to say that this movie is a must seen for anyone who likes Russian history, society and lifestyle. But it is also easy to watch and understand for someone who doesn't know much about the topic because most of the sings are told in the interesting past sequences of the movie. I've travelled to Russia and seen and lived a lot of particular things there and must admit that the behaviours of the police, the military and the government in this movie are not a stupid cliché but quite close to reality. Even the locations chosen for the shootings remind me of the modern Russian post-soviet lifestyle even though most of the scenes have been filmed in Latvia.

Well, I got largely surprised as this movie is really intense and has a realistic scenario that makes you think a lot about nowadays's societies and ideologies. The movie is really entertaining and I have watched it several times without getting bored at all. The characters and the story are well and profoundly developed. The surprising element in the movie is not such a big twist but that isn't negative because the main idea is quite original and the maintain of the tension is always guaranteed in this movie. The movie's finale is dramatically and interesting.

The most positive surprise in this movie is the acting of Daniel Craig. I've always known him as the cool, emotionless and somehow mediocre James Bond actor but he is really convincing in this movie. He plays with emotions, with conviction and with an unknown diversity. The only time he played as well was in "Defiance" which you would also like if you like this movie.

I really can recommend this entertaining and surprisingly well done and produced movie even though most of the critics are actually too negative.

I watched this movie as a last resort, for something better to do, and I was pleasantly surprised. The story was very good, which is something you don't get these days with the new breed of writers. This is also the first time I have seen Daniel Craig in a movie since his rise to James Bond. I was impressed with his acting and he was very believable in his part. I believe that is movie is out on DVD and well worth the rental fee or purchase if you like. There are a lot of twists and turns in this movie but if you pay attention it is fairly easy to keep up with the action. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a story with a lot of ins and outs.

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.