Watch Archangel For Free

Good concept, poorly executed.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

The acting in this movie is really good.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

A great cast and premise goes absolutely nowhere. Characters are shallow and have no discernible arcs. The plot seems interesting at first but can't back up the initial promise. The visual style is bland and muddy throughout. I kept thinking "this will come through with a great ending"... until about halfway through the final episode when I realized this was going to crash with a thud. Characters who seemed to be important started dying, and an ending that made everything that came before utterly useless. What a waste of time and talents.

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..!!!"

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!!! :)