Purely Joyful Movie!

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

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.

I am guessing that if this story about Stalin's biological child isn't exactly real, it is as true as any history about any important types of people from along time ago (and present day as well as what is truth any hows?). So, if anyone knows if something like this was supposed to have actually happened, please write to me and let me know. Not that it really matters, so don't waste precious time. Just another story that one wonders on. (Spend more time relaxing)It was a rather fun movie to watch. There is an element about Daniel Craig that makes him a rather tedious person, as opposed to the James Bond dude who practically sparkles. But I'm sure that probably most people will pooh-pooh this movie as it is about rather boring crap - historical Russia. I personally have always found it all fascinating how contorted that those rulers have created their society/world. And the need to be a survivalist there is almost like watching a thriller. So, if you know how to read between the lines about Russia and other prisoned folk - you too may appreciate this movie as I did. But remember its not a sparkler of a movie, just an insight into a different sort of person than gringos.

The best thing about this film is Daniel Craig, but even he cannot save this by-the-numbers made-for-TV slog. I wonder how many airport-fiction writers got inspired by 'Gorky Park' to write a 'Russian' thriller of their own, but this cannot be one of the better results. The premise of post-Soviet Russia being obsessed by (or generally giving a s*** about) Stalin and being in danger of a Communist revolution lead by Joe Jr. is laughable. Little Stalin's short speech en route to Moscow - watch his gloved hands - must be one of the cheesiest moments in the history of cinema.I hope that Russian actors had a good time participating in this silly production; I liked everyone involved, especially the memorable Communist honcho with a fake Russian last name - 'Mamantov' is really 'Mamontov', but who cares? - and the endearingly Ralph-Fiennes'ish 'good KGB guy'. Apart from Russian actors getting paid, another benefit to Russian economy has been the $200 or so that Archangel's director spent on cheap Lenin and Stalin busts and portraits, sprinkled generously all over the set. (Getting live bears proved too expensive, unfortunately).In my opinion, the best line in the movie belongs not to Daniel Craig's character, Dr. Kelso - no relation to the Dr. Kelso from 'Scrubs' - but to a female colleague of his, who propositions the dashing historian with this memorable line: 'I have to get laid before I go back to Princeton'. PS. No, she does not!!! What a waste!!! :)