UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Archangel

Archangel (2005)

March. 18,2005
|
6.4
|
PG
| Drama Thriller Crime Mystery

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.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Cubussoli
2005/03/18

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

More
Stometer
2005/03/19

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

More
Claysaba
2005/03/20

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

More
Donald Seymour
2005/03/21

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

More
thedocgerbil
2005/03/22

After watching the first two parts, I logged on to IMDb and preemptively rated it an 8/10. The third act's rododcuous script totally fumbles the story's arc and careens it into a generous 6/10. I'm not against deviating from the book, but this was a total rushed disaster. It dethroned the miniseries from "potential cult classic" to "recommended watching if you're a fan of Daniel Craig and period pieces." Fortunately, I'm in the latter category, so it wasn't a total waste - just a sore disappointment. I loved Daniel Craig's performances, and the cinematography was beautiful. It's always a treat to see the gorgeous Russian tundra.

More
werefox08
2005/03/23

One of the many miniseries that you watch and your secretly praying...for the end. The story is far fetched and ludicrous. The acting is sub--standard. In espionage type of movies...tension...is normally a key ingredient. Here it is almost completely missing. I got the distinct impression...the players...didn't really care much how this came out. There pay cheques were safe. Daniel Craig (now James Bond) has a limited range....and those limits are painfully on display here. A movie that will never be remembered for anything. And thats fair enough. Good movies are made by a crew that are fully committed and know how its done. Great movies..?? Well thats something else. Classics ??..They "just happen..!!!"

More
elcoat
2005/03/24

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

More
livinginitaly7
2005/03/25

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.

More