Kirpianuscus
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.
lois-lane33
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.
MoviegoerinWI
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.
Goodluck Internetstalkers
With a surprising pace, Archangel developed a promising story, and continued to be interesting throughout the film, with a few moments of lazy writing. However, after the shootout towards the end of the film, the movie stayed dry until the last scene. I heard some complaints about the ending, but what else did you want them to do? Why do people love the Raiders of the Lost Ark scene where Indy shoots the Swordsman? Because it was just right. Basically, if you love this history period, and you can sit through a drama/thriller, then this film is for you.6.7/10 I'll leave it at that.
AD
