Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

thedocgerbil 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.

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

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 It is like a bad outdated video game.

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.