Archangel (2005)

Strong and Moving!

Nice effects though.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I kind of have a simplistic view of things-I tend to see life as a situation of the Martini drinkers versus the Mojito drinkers....maybe I'm right-maybe not. This film was something that took my mind away from seeing the world as two waring tribes who are diametrically opposed. This film portrays things in the world as very complex & full of hidden avenues and unexpected twists and turns. I found this film thoroughly well done and thoroughly watchable and not at all amateurish or clinical in its portrayal of people, places, and events. It was very realistic and I truly got the feeling of being in a frigid cold place in the midst of challenging obstacles. Daniel Crag was effective in his role as a writer/scholar, in this movie. I think Archangel still rates as one of the worlds great forbidden places so seeing it in this movie was definitely unique. I give it an eight out of ten, not a nine out of ten since Stalin actually still has living relatives in this very day and age. And they are not male. And you don't get to pick your parents. Or your grand parents.

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.

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.

Recap: Fluke Kelso is an American historian giving a lecture on Stalin in Moscow. He is approached by an old man claiming to be the only eyewitness of head of security Beria hiding the personal notebook of Stalin. This being invaluable historical material, Kelso goes to retrieve the book. But he isn't the only on interested. FSB, the secret service, is suddenly very interested in his movements and communist party members want the book's information in the upcoming election. The notebook contains information leading to Archangelsk were a secret lies hidden that might threaten the fragile Russian democracy.Comments: Originally a miniseries of two one hour long parts that are put together to a movie. Starring is Daniel Craig, supported primarily by Gabriel Macht and Ekaterina Rednikova. Despite being "only" two hours it manages to squeeze quite a lot into that time frame. The story is a classical treasure hunt, with hidden clues that need to be deciphered and followed to another clue that eventually leads to the treasure, albeit is set in recent times in Russia. Kelso and his companions is always on the hunt for the next step, next clue so something is always happening. And in the end it is tied together quite nicely, even if it gets a little too predictable.Otherwise, quite a nice story about a alternative history that is close enough to the true one that it is plausible. Especially since the true history of that time is not very clear, and open to speculation. I actually had to check on some persons and events to see what was true, what could be true and what was fiction.If you're interested in recent history or political thrillers, this is probably something you might want to watch. Otherwise, you might want to check something else out, but this wasn't bad.6/10