33 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

http://www.amazon.co...duct/B000I8OOK6 ?

What an interesting release date they picked...

[marktmurphy]

But... it's already out on DVD (?). I've got a copy.

EDIT: Oh sorry- this is the US one. Gotcha.

[Righty007]

This is great! Thanks, dinovelvet.

[James Blond]

Is the movie good?

[iexpectu2die]

Is the movie good?

Its a TV drama which showed over here on the BBC. 3 episodes I think, about an hour each. Its pretty good. I notice Craig is more 'promoted' on the US DVD cover, having become Bond and all that

[Arch Stanton]

About friggin' time Region 1 gets it! It was a pretty cool book, can't wait to see how it made the transision to the screen.

[dee-bee-five]

Is the movie good?

One British TV critic called it the best audition for James Bond any actor has given. This, before Craig was cast in the role.

[marktmurphy]

I enjoyed watching after Craig was cast- it reminded me of watching The Fourth Protocol when Pierce was cast; it has a very similar feel. Not superb, but enjoyable and with a nice spy-type feel.

[Killmaster]

thanks for the heads-up. i've been waiting for "archangel" to show up in a format i could watch. i enjoyed the novel by robert harris and it'll be interesting to see how craig plays fluke kelso.

[Cody]

Finally! I've been waiting a year for this DVD news. Archangel is the Craig movie I most wanted to see when I was studying up on him after the Bond rumors started.

Edited by Cody, 13 September 2006 - 05:46 PM.

[Arch Stanton]

Anyone think that the story was basically The Da Vinci Code but with Joseph Stalin instead of Jesus? I made the connection on another message board and somebody thought that description really funny.

[James Blond]

I just pre-ordered it, thanks for the reviews!

[Killmaster]

it's definitely on my list of dvd's to order.

[Righty007]

it's definitely on my list of dvd's to order.

Me too.

[Athena007]

OOo cool. I've been wanting to see this. Netflix!

[JimmyBond]

Is it worth the purchase? I'm not a fan of Craig's American accent, and it appears the review on Amazon.com was less than favorable.

[marktmurphy]

Is it worth the purchase? I'm not a fan of Craig's American accent, and it appears the review on Amazon.com was less than favorable.

Er... what American accent? His character is English.

[JimmyBond]

I was going off the review I read on Amazon.com

[marktmurphy]

I was going off the review I read on Amazon.com

Then I really wouldn't take any notice of it if they can't tell which country the main character is from.

[Loomis]

Is the movie good?

IMO, no, not really. Although there are a couple of strange Bondian coincidence-type things in the script, and it's somehow quite John Gardnerish. Worth a rental, but I wouldn't buy it.

[marktmurphy]

Is the movie good?

IMO, no, not really. Although there are a couple of strange Bondian coincidence-type things in the script, and it's somehow quite John Gardnerish. Worth a rental, but I wouldn't buy it.

It does feel very 80's, doesn't it? Makes me think of the Fourth Protocol: not a good movie by any means, but not actually bad and very watchable. And if you like spy stuff, then you'll probably enjoy passing the time with it.

[Broadsword]

Craig is the best thing in it. And given how far he strayed from the book and so makes many of the other plot points slightly nonsensical, this is saying something.

Apart from him I found it highly irritating. The female lead is quite possibly the most grating actor who ever put herself on camera. Honestly, she is that bad. She is has zero redeeming qualities, no charisma and utters every line like she is reading while chewing a wasp. Hopelessly unconvincing.

Sorry to be so definitve but I was really looking forward to wacthing this but the BBC ruined it. Watch the making of and find out why. The producers are all a bunch of back slapping admistrators who seem to think they are all amazing at what they do.

.They seem to think they have made a masterpiece, yet the fake snow, appalling female lead, and stodgy direction of action scenes is very amateurish. The tension builds to nothing as the 3rd episode comes to an end.

Moscow is more snowy than the frozen North, with the fake snow they could only cover so much, so its kind of a light frosting on the ground of what should have been a snowed under forest hide away. They didn't film in the North of Russia, but I think RIga instead. it shows. it looks like Hemel Hempstead with dodgy CGI.

There are other plot holes as well. . Why does DC's character not know where the Lenin Library is? (the most famous library in Moscow on one of the most famous streets AND he is supposed to have studied there) He is also supposed to be a fluent Russian speaker but sometimes needs stuff translating (e.g in the library. Hes a Russian academic for petesake) Why is an experienced Russian academic who studied in Moscow spend much his time walking round in a designer suit in a Moscow winter (albeit looking cool) while everyone else shuffles past i n Hats and boots? Why is the river frozen in Moscow but the river he falls into in the North theres not even a hint of frost? Why would anyone tie a boat up in the middle of winter in a river in Archangel? Where is the sexual tension between DC and the girl. She spends all of the film appearing to hate his guts WHY WHY WHY?. There are just too many GCSE style mistakes. Seriously it was made by kids I swear.

its all abit early Doctor Who. You might have a good time spotting the mistakes but thats about it Maybe my standards are too high for a 3-6 million quid BBC production of a serious thriller starring one of our most exciting actors. .

The other problem is DC's character. In the book he is all cynical and drunken AND American. Here DC is allowed to play him as a sharp and taut English academic. The reviewer was getting at something. Maybe DC was simply auditioning for Bond.

They should have forced him to play the character as written,. DC as a drunk and slightly immoral academic would have been awesome.

Sorry to be so negative but for once I wish I had followed my instincts and stayed away.

Broadsword.

Edited by Broadsword, 26 September 2006 - 05:01 AM.

[marktmurphy]

I don't think it's that bad at all- I certainly don't remember being appalled by the love interest. And the CGI's pretty impressive, isn't it?

[jake speed]

I remember looking forward to this because of the subject matter. I think I managed to stick with it for about twenty-five minutes. This was first broadcast just after Craig's name seemed to suddenly crop up in the Bond sweepstakes and didn't help in endearing me to that prospect.

[Righty007]

I ordered my copy a few days ago.

[dinovelvet]

I saw it in Blockbuster actually, I will probably rent it. I don't understand why they used that bad pic of Craig on the cover, you'd have thought they'd use a more deliberately Bondian pose; they have obviously released it to cash in on Craig's new fame so why not do a Matador and make it look more Bondy on the cover?

[Mr Woodpigeon]

Is this any good?

[MR. BOND 93]

I saw this at Blockbuster.

I wanted to get it... but decided not to.

[simone007]

I want to see this movie very much. I added it to my Blockbuster Online queue and it says 'VERY LONG WAIT'.

Uh.... was does 'VLW' mean in time? a month, two, 4?

And at the actual Blockbuster store, the 3 copies they have are for cheesy 2-day rentals only, and they are all taken.

WTH? People must be on a Daniel hot streak, and I guess that's good!

[dinovelvet]

I want to see this movie very much. I added it to my Blockbuster Online queue and it says 'VERY LONG WAIT'.

Uh.... was does 'VLW' mean in time? a month, two, 4?

And at the actual Blockbuster store, the 3 copies they have are for cheesy 2-day rentals only, and they are all taken.

WTH? People must be on a Daniel hot streak, and I guess that's good!

Yeah of course! It was rented out at my BB too. By the way, another older Daniel film, OBSESSION was recently released on US DVD.