frantz21 the whole premise had huge potential1) road trip from Moscow to Archangel 2) Lost son of Stalin 3) communist party apparatchiks scheming for the return of Communism 4) ex Stalin Body guards 5) Russian libraries and archives 6) forest chase 7) gunfight with spetnatz in Archangel flaws 1) to rushed 2) more to be made of all the elements 3) assassination at 30 metres( no intervention) 4) spettnaz were out gunned Unlikely 5) the black academics role in Moscow 6) the gunfight outside archangel 7) the journalists outwitting everyone

LPGPaul This BBC series is actually a fine portrayal of the historical intrigues and factual discrepancies that surround the Stalinist era. To many students of history the story told about the end of Stalin's life has been officially tailored for minimum controversy. This series piques the conspiracy fanatic to see beyond the need for popular 007-esque shoot-em-up scenes from Daniel Craig, and delves more fully into the cultural dissonance and still-oppressed lifestyles in today's Russia. It takes the more informed audience to see that the story challenges a western viewer to understand life in today's Russia. To realize the present generational conflict among both anti- and pro-soviet era senior citizens and the contemporary Russian society who are trying to justify the need for genuine freedom, even if to understand mistakes of the past.

werefox08 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..!!!"

demyan2 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!!! :)