Recensioni degli utenti

Archangel

Set in contemporary Moscow and the frozen northern town of Archangel, the drama revisits the stark landscape of Communist Russia and takes place over four days in the life of academic Fluke Kelso. His fateful meeting with a former Stalinist bodyguard leads to the uncovering of one of the world's most dangerous and best kept secrets. He is led unwittingly through murder and intrigue towards his own personal "Holy Grail" - Joseph Stalin's secret legacy - a legacy that could change the face of Russian history forever.

'Archangel' is quite friendly towards those not familiar with the legacy of Josef Stalin, and is an engrossing mystery as a result. Unfortunately, there's also a lack of character development here. The people in this television film are just sort of presented to the audience, and then become pawns in the film's narrative. So it doesn't work very well as a thriller, and maybe an extra half an hour or so could have worked out this problem. However, Daniel Craig and Russian actress Yekaterina Rednikova give reliable performances, and the ending is definitely not what I was expecting (but in a good way). Not without its flaws, but worth catching when it's on again.

~ 7/10 ~

"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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Just thinking that it would be some good casual watching, I settled down to this two part drama on BBC 1 in 2005. Initially I didn't expect much but soon I discovered that this low profile production was actually one of the best dramas that I have seen. Set heavily in Russia, the film actually is acted by many Russian actors/actresses in real life. My overall impression was that a lot of time, thought and effort had been put into the production making an excellent final product. Not only was the acting good but also the storyline, scenery and directing. I give the TV-film and overall rating of 10/10 (and believe me, I don't give that rating lightly - in fact, I think it is the first time I have ever given such a high rating for anything on IMDb). I think that the only disappointing thing about the film was the fact that it was not released in the cinema.

This is a film that really shed some light about post USSR society. For years I've wondered if there were any Stalinists remaining in Russia, they did keep the Soviet national anthem and that had me wondering. This film gives a fictional account of what may be.

The action in the movie is pretty intense, its more of a Clue and detective film in the likes of National Treasure and DaVinci code, where one clue leads to another clue, and that clue leads to another clue, etc. It can be a bit redundant at times, especially the 2nd part of the mini-series. However, the film is beautiful to watch, having some of the most gorgeous urban cinematography in it. This film is directed very well, and the production never felt cheap. Daniel Craig does a wonderful job playing a determined journalist eager to make a buck; only to become so enthralled in his research that he soon began to forget about the potential money he would make by finally getting a hold of Stalin's lost memoirs and writing a book about it.

In the end, we learn a startling truth. There are indeed 30 million people in Russia who stand by Stalin until this day, many claiming to be blood related, and seeking to return Eurasia back to his Red ways. However, the world is a modern planet now, and these Stalin supporters show how out dated and obsolete their ways have become. A truly chilling film indeed.

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

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.

the whole premise had huge potential

1) 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

While watching this film I kept thinking of the Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov who wrote about political and economic matters in Russia and got very close to the inner circle of Oligarchs and then was eventually assassinated.

He was the editor for Forbes in Russia and was shot while leaving the office one night. Transported to the hospital in an ambulance with no oxygen, upon arrival the elevator broke down while being taken to surgery.

Though the main character played by Craig in this film is not shot, he comes close to getting assassinated.

This is a very interesting film if you are into the political history of Russia. But it is slow at times and everyone is a bit too aloof, so the character development is shallow.

But it's a good film in other respects. Seven stars.

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.

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.

Archangel, an excellent action/adventure story, was filmed in Moscow and Latvia and originally produced as a two part BBC-TV series. Unlike many US adaptations of serialized TV shows, the transition between the episodes is seamless and the ensuing two-hour drama stands in good stead as an integrated whole.

The result is an outstanding motion picture. The cinematography is impressive, the plot is fascinating, and the acting, by both supporting actors and principals is first rate - including what may be Daniel Craig's finest recent performance.

Filmed under what were obviously frequently challenging conditions of rain, snow and cold, Archangel manages to capture the bitter chill and desolation of the countryside in winter as well as the grit and grandeur of Moscow.

As the plot unfolds it relates the tale of a Western historian, Kelso - played by Craig - who attends a conference in Moscow only to discover a mystery and a conspiracy dating back to Stalin's death in 1953. His life in danger, Kelso teams up with a young Russian woman, Zinaida - brilliantly portrayed by Yekaterina Rednikova - to solve the mystery and attempt to foil the plot.

Although the story line sounds generally similar to "the Da Vinci Code", Archangel more credibly dramatizes a profound conflict in values between traditionalists and progressives - in this case, in a society where socialism was once the opiate of the intelligentsia. In that respect it is much like the earlier Russia House, which starred Sean Connery as the western visitor enmeshed in a dangerous conspiracy and internal conflict in the former Soviet Union.

To one who lived through the cold war, Archangel does a marvelous job - integrating current events with flashbacks - of depicting the complex ways in which the Russian people did and still do react to Stalin - a proved mass murderer - with fear, with hatred, with admiration and respect, and even with love.

The story doesn't require too extreme a suspension of disbelief, and the portrayal of the Moscow streets and Russian people, rural and urban, powerful or impoverished, opportunists and petty bureaucrats, progressives who long for change and traditionalist who seek a return to an earlier era, is quite realistic.

One of the greatest pleasures of Archangel is the opportunity to see Daniel Craig at his best. He brings wit, charm and intelligence to the role of Kelso in a way that he was either unable or not allowed to do in either Casino Royale or Munich.

Craig is obviously a very talented actor - and in Archangel, delivers a performance that far outshines his work in Casino Royale - as well as that of the other Bond - Sean Connery - in a similar role in the aforementioned Russia House.

All in all, a great way to spend two hours - and I'd watch it again.

With the exception of the new series of DOCTOR WHO , this has got to be the most publicised BBC serial of the year , and with good reason I guess since Robert Harris is a popular and acclaimed novelist whose books make very informative reading

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

However watching ARCHANGEL it becomes very obvious that his novels work as informative and very well researched novels only suited to the printed page to make them anyway successful . The FATHERLAND TVM set in a Nazi dominated world of the 1960s is hated by fans of the novel , while ENIGMA doesn't really lend itself to the way the movie was marketed and it's the same with this BBC miniseries

Is the Russian tundra a good location for a thriller ? There's a limit to how much the human eye can take before it starts suffering from snow blindness , in fact the cold snowy landscape depressed this viewer more than anything else . Oh and because of the plot we treated to lots of simplified ex positional dialogue for the benefit of a mass audience who don't know the first thing about Uncle Joe Stalin . Exposition in a book is one thing because you can dedicate many pages of characters thought process , but watching it on a television screen means the characters and dialogue come off as unnatural

But ironically it's Harris's plot where everything comes apart - Stalin had a son who no one knows about and is trying to force the new Russia into communist dictatorship again. Sorry I don't buy that due to the gaps in logic . Communism wasn't founded under Stalin nor did it end with the death of Stalin so why the big deal about new communism on the march ? And why would killing Stalin Jnr signal the end of a potential communist era ?

The flaws with this political thriller are the same as the ones of Ira Levin's novel about Hitler being cloned . They are somewhat ridiculous plots but are so well written that the reader won't notice these flaws . Watching it played out on screen is a different matter