Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

SnoopyStyle 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.

Kirpianuscus interesting start point. not bad effort to sustain a story who could be fascinating. and the clichés who remain the last option to save the film from fall. result - Daniel Craig in a poor version of James Bond, dark secrets about Stalin and solutions - miracle to each problem. a good start becoming not the best finish. the basic motives for see Archangel - the nice idea. and, sure, the presence of Avtandil Makharadze in the role of Stalin - for the admirers of Abuladze , like me, could be the most important motif -. in rest, the pressure of subject destroys the first steps in an ambiguous story about all and about nothing. and the thriller runs in an imprecise direction. but , for the admirers of the genre, it is an inspired choice.

blanche-2 "Archangel" is a BBC production in three parts done in 2005 and starring Daniel Craig and Gabriel Macht (Suits). It's based on a novel I haven't read, so I'll say right off the bat I can't compare the two.Craig plays Fluke Kelso, a British history professor in Russia. After lecturing about the evils of Stalin, he is approached by an old man who tells Kelso that he knows nothing. The man tells him that when he was a young guard, he witnessed the burying of a notebook that could change Russia forever. The man leaves before Kelso can talk to him further, so he goes looking for him and eventually meets the man's daughter Zinaida (Yekaterina Rednikova). When they track down her father, he has been murdered.Kelso and Zinaida, hounded by a TV reporter (Macht), then attempt to track down the notebook, translate it, and learn the secret.Actually filmed in Russia and Latvia, the scenery is amazing, and Daniel Craig is so good that one is willing to overlook an insane plot. It's very much like the DaVinci code but doesn't quite get there.The script is okay but not great, and the characters are somewhat stereotyped, though Rednikova and Macht give good performances. Craig is a brilliant actor and does a wonderful job.This film could have been a lot better, but as it is, it's interesting, well done, well acted, and holds one's interest. What more could one ask for? Well, some character development and a story that is a little bit less fanciful.

livinginitaly7 While this film had an interesting plot and I always enjoy other locations it was missing something. The out door scenes, and there were lots of them, were great. However while the premise of the story was interesting, it was also too clichéd. And while Daniel Craig, looking gaunt, thin & very much the bookish professor was alright as the professor, it seemed just like an acting gig he took to go to Russia. I could be completely wrong, but it lacked...his very direct focus that he does so well. He is such a superb actor that he seemed to just be doing minimal work in this picture. As for the female lead, she was tough, depressed & there was absolutely no romance or chemistry. Yes, it was Russia and it was a hard story & the Russian characters had hard lives from the domino affect of Stalin, but there was absolutely no levity to transition from one scene to the next. Mel Gibson was supposedly going to do this film. Ithink if there had been a better budget and Mr. Craig had consumed some food that maybe the picture would have been better. The movie was alright, but not great & could have been much more I am sorry to say.