Archangel

2005
6.4| 0h30m| TV-MA| en| More Info
Released: 19 March 2005 Ended
Producted By: BBC
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/archangel
Synopsis

Fluke Kelso, a dissipated, middle-aged former Oxford historian, who is in Moscow to attend a conference on the newly opened Soviet archives, receives in his hotel a very unexpected visitor.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

BBC

Trailers & Images

Reviews

sergepesic It is always fascinating to this frustrated viewer how complexities of the world we live in get dumbed down for the potential audience. Somehow, the powers to be in the movie world, seem to be petrified of intelligence. So, lets make it all simple and if possible idiotic. The legacy of Joseph Stalin and the incredible power he wielded over the former Soviet Union is a mixed bag. On one hand it is hard to dispute the horrors he committed upon his own people, but you can't argue with the fact that during his rule the country became a super power in the world. To this ardent anti-communist, Stalin's sadistic nature and crimes overpower any good that he did. But, this inane movie manages to completely miss any logic or keep an open mind. It is like a bad outdated video game.
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.
elcoat 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
livinginitaly7 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.