Archangel

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.

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.

Ok, ok. All good. But not getting that no one else is getting that the boy, AT A MINIMUM, would be 65 years old this year. Senior died in 1953

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.

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.