Archangel
Archangel
TV-MA | 19 March 2005 (USA)

Rent / Buy

Buy from $1.99
SEASON & EPISODES
  • 1
  • Reviews
    Diagonaldi Very well executed
    Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.
    Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.
    Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
    frantz21 the whole premise had huge potential1) road trip from Moscow to Archangel 2) Lost son of Stalin 3) communist party apparatchiks scheming for the return of Communism 4) ex Stalin Body guards 5) Russian libraries and archives 6) forest chase 7) gunfight with spetnatz in Archangel flaws 1) to rushed 2) more to be made of all the elements 3) assassination at 30 metres( no intervention) 4) spettnaz were out gunned Unlikely 5) the black academics role in Moscow 6) the gunfight outside archangel 7) the journalists outwitting everyone
    LPGPaul 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.
    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.
    elcoat As another reviewer has said, it starts out questionably and then gets deeper and better. It begins in banality and descends into a dark, sinister evil.Craig's character seems like a selfish, repulsive academic opportunist who stumbles on something far bigger than he ever imagined and tries to rise to the threat.The importance of archival research is showcased.The Russian actress is convincing and erotic. The Russian characters are consistent with people I have known.It would be interesting to know more about the background of the film. The plot is entirely believable: it is generally unknown that the Yeltsin government actually considered bringing back Russian royalty from an illegitimate offspring of the Czar. Children of powerful, dominating leaders can have a charisma with the masses which can indeed be psychologically and politically compelling, and actor Konstantin Lavronenko was as convincing as he was chilling as the Young Joseph.The film is also extremely educational about what Stalinism was like and how it has haunted modern Russia ... if less so, with time.Despite some recent attempts at Reversionism in Russia, I don't think neo-Stalinism is a threat there -- considering our past tradition and championing of humanitarianism and democracy, we became worse for a time -- but the film makes you think about what great historical evil was like and where it could head all of us.Lou Coatney