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

Armand 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.

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!!! :)

dbborroughs Daniel Craig stars as a history professor specializing in the fall of communism in the former Soviet Union. A (not so) chance encounter on the street sets him off and running on the trail of a long buried secret concerning the death and legacy of Josef Stalin. Its a secret that many would kill for so Craig quickly finds himself in the middle of a hornets nest of well armed men.This was a multi-part TV movie based on a novel by Robert Harris which was trimmed slightly for DVD. As it stands now this is a good but still long winded telling of an okay mystery story. The problem for me was that once the secret is revealed (around the half way point) the film kind of has no where to go. Granted where it does go is logical but its neither as earth shaking nor as unexpected as one really needs with the build up it gets. Don't get me wrong as espionage thrillers go this is actually pretty good, especially in the first half, but in the end the story doesn't add up to very much.Worth a look on a rainy Sunday, but not worth searching out