Am I Missing Something?

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

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.

"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.

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

Travel in past. A new old Russia and its ghosts, mysteries and a hansom professor. A kind of Da Vinci code, soft, nice and with some drops of tension. Stalin and his shadow. A son and a dark legacy. A notebook and the lost life of a young girl. Nostalgics and Secret Services. Pieces of a thriller. Nothing new, in fact. Superficial, like any East story in the eyes of an American, half -truth and classic recipes. Victory of good guy and the failure of evil. But interesting in that case are the roots. Russia is a mystery, part of its history and Bovary's land. His dreams are fruits of an one era. The leaders are masks of a single Master. The present is more small for the desire to be a Power.And the time - a notebook of a young girl lost in an era's memory.