User reviews

After almost thirty years, Michael Caine is back playing Harry Palmer. However, it has been THIRTY YEARS--and, like the expression goes, you can never go back--and that certainly is true of "Bullet to Beijing". Unlike the earlier Palmer stories, Len Deighton was not involved with this one...and I think it shows. The first three films of the series ("The Ipcress File", "Funeral in Berlin" and "Billion Dollar Brain") were great--a nice alternative to a Bond film. Here, however, it looks like there is a lot more Bond and a lot less Harry Palmer.

After three decades with the British secret service, Palmer is summarily retired without so much as a thank you. Soon, he receives an offer to work for someone else--though they don't identify who they are--they just give him a ticket to meet them in Russia. Harry takes the offer (why?) and soon is transported into a world completely unlike his earlier film efforts. Here is the problem--the film is again and again an ACTION film. But the earlier films deliberately avoided being action films. Sure, things happened--but most of the time Palmer stood by on the sidelines. And, there were none of the usual insane James Bond miraculous escapes. Here in "Bullet to Beijing", it's one action sequence after another after another--including way too many shootouts that resulted in folks with pistols taking out many folks with machine guns!!! Now I know a marksman can do amazing things with a pistol--but to again and again take out baddies with automatic weapons?! And, the other major problem is that folks keep changing sides!! Again and again, you need a scorecard to keep track of who is one who's side! To me, this just seemed sloppy. The overall effort is a passable ACTION film but one severely disappointing to those expecting the Harry Palmer of old. It's made worse by the end, where, inexplicably, the baddies just let Palmer go after he destroys their evil plan!!! Uggh.

Having heard mixed reviews about this and it's follow up, which almost made Caine retire, I have to say it's better than I was expecting. True there are a lot of shady characters, Connery, Sara , Kwouk etc, but I think this leads to the thrill of the movie. However, it does look like a TV movie and the true bad guy hardly makes an appearance. Decent movie, nothing more.

Michael Caine reprises his portrayal of the Len Deighton character "Harry Palmer" in this rather cheap and cheerful cold-war thriller. This time he joins forces with the handsome, but lightweight, Jason Connery ("Nick") as they work for the enigmatic "Alex" (an unlikely Russian Michael Gambon) to thwart a deadly plan to release a virus that has been pinched by some North Koreans. A few other familiar faces try their best to pep this along, but it's really just an amalgam of themes that is well past it's sell by date. Caine is there, but he isn't - maybe another swimming pool? The dialogue is really pretty pedestrian (though the "we're all getting a bit too old for this" byline does raise a smile now and again). It's got plenty of stylish location photography and the action scenes - of which there is a distinct paucity - are quite good fun when we get them. Otherwise, it's a mediocre television movie that I found placed the "Palmer' character in a series of fish-out-of-water scenarios that rather undermined the charm and novelty of his earlier outings. Caine can carry a film, his sheer weight of personality does that here - but this is certainly nobody's finest work.

After 30 years Harry Palmer ( Michael Caine) returns a bit older but still amused and amusing. There are at least two versions of this film. In the one I own, Sue Lloyd makes a brief appearance as Harry's old girl friend Jean, now a blonde, sexy widow. They have a suggested sex scene. This was worth some of the lapses in the films storyline. However, I though Caine, Connery and Michael Gambon were all first rate and the running gags about redundant, over-the-hill secret agents worked for me.The locale of St Petersburg is fresh and the complications of plot ( who is one whose side), falling off the train, the problems of the decaying yet free market Soviet Union, etc. are interesting. I like BULLET and have actually watched it twice in 2 weeks. Too bad its sequel was a bit redundant itself.

This is a fairly misleading film. First of all, there is no bullet train in the film; it is the slow boat to China on rails. The acting, after Caine and Connery, tends to fall off quite a bit. The sets are a bit amateurish, and the script and dialogue are questionable, at best.

There are plenty of red herrings; but then again, there should be since we are in Russia. Some of the "surprises" were a just a bit too much to take, but I will let you judge that at the end.

One sequence is obviously a studio shot on a set, as there are no believable citizens standing around. Other than these foibles, the film is fairly watchable, and the showcasing of Mr. Connery is impressive; he showed promise in this film. Unfortunately, his career did not take off afterwards.

This somewhat neglected roustabout 90s espionage actioner with Sir Michael Caine and Jason Connery zestfully delivers some rewardingly locomotive boy's own entertainment! Stolid, if unremarkable director Mihalka's pleasingly boisterous 'Bullet To Beijing' happily remains a shadowy, entertainingly brisk, St. Petersburg-set thriller, and the engagingly picturesque Russian locations greatly enhance the experience! While the assured acting, alacritous pacing, pleasingly jocular tone, and overall film making is pretty terrific, sadly, Rick Wakeman's almost lifeless, formulaic score is a major demerit. Otherwise, this is a frequently entertaining, albeit undemanding, double-dealing cold war thriller. Granted, I was ALWAYS more team Palmer than team Bond, but, with that being said,'Bullet To Beijing' should prove to be an agreeably escapist diversion to spy fans with more forgiving natures! And it must also be noted that the estimable Thespian Michael Gambon is evilly understated as the Machiavellian mastermind Alexei Alexeyevich! While not exactly a bullseye, 'Bullet To Beijing' is still worth a shot!

Playing Harry Palmer, the most boring secret agent ever presented on screen (can't say if he's that boring on the books), Michael Caine has the mission of tracking down the formula of a nuclear weapon that is about to be delivered to North Korea by the Chinese. And Palmer is not working for his British comrades that decided to retire the man, but yes for the Russian, in the post Cold War scenario.

Has to be one of the most uninteresting and weak developed spy films I've ever seen. Nothing so exciting happens, the plot is contrived, simplistic and dull, with nothing to say, dopey as hell. Gotta have some real nerve to enjoy something lifeless like this. In one of his weakest performances but not to the point of going to the Wall of Shame (like "Jaws 87"), Michael Caine is helpless in playing a character that isn't appealing like James Bond or clever and real as George Smiley. Jason Connery, Mia Sara, Michael Sarrazin, Burt Kwouk and Michael Gambon, they all didn't have much to do with a script that leaves somewhere to go nowhere.

The more it reaches the end the worse it gets, and the only good moment out of "Bulllet to Beijing" is a sequence involving a car chase where Caine and Connery's son need to get in time to catch the Express train to Beijing. What a delightful way to waste your precious time. 3/10

British agent Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) is doing a nothing job observing the North Korean Embassy when a demonstration turns violent. An old lady assassinates Russian genetics scientist Prof. Kulbitsky outside of the embassy and Harry hears his final words. Harry gets retired due to budget cuts. He is lured to St. Petersburg where he meets Nikolai (Jason Connery), Natasha (Mia Sara) and potential employer Alex (Michael Gambon). He is offered $250k to find a missing binary bio weapon Alorex or the Red Death bound for North Korea. He discovers the Alorex will be on a train to Beijing. On the train, he is befriended by ex-CIA Craig Warner (Michael Sarrazin). All the while, Harry is hounded by would-be assassins.

This is a continuation of Len Deighton's character Harry Palmer but not actually from a book of his. It's a TV movie elevated by Michael Caine returning as Harry. The action isn't slick like 007 but it's exotic enough. Harry is not the dashing 007 and that's what sets him apart from his more famous cousin. It's Bond with poorer action and a better cat-and-mouse game. The production is generally second rate. Other than Michael Caine, there isn't anything superior in this movie.

I have seen and loved the original Harry Palmer movies and can tell you that this belated made-for-TV sequel does not measure up at all. BULLET TO BEIJING doesn't even deserve to be called a Harry Palmer film. It's like the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN of this series, only worse. None of the charm or intelligence of the original series remains. The score is terrible and the low-key script does more with bad comedy than it does with action. There is a single explosion which is entirely pointless. The plot is weak and the characters thin. This is a painfully television experience. Skip this failure and see THE IPCRESS FILE, FUNERAL IN BERLIN, or THE BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN. As Michael Caine said in his Golden Globes speech "I made a lot of crap" this is some of it. Burn every copy!

I was surprised to see this film on the shelf for sale as I'd never heard of it and never knew anyone had tried to resuscitate Michael Caine as Harry Palmer. I came to the conclusion it wasn't going to be very good compared with the original Palmer films and would be like other attempts at revivals i.e. not very good. If you watch this film with this frame of mind you won't be too disappointed. Mr Caine still gets to do his cheeky one liners to those in authority but Harry appears to have grown less subtle in his later years(unlike his new black framed glasses) Certainly not a Harry Palmer film of the old ilk, but could a post Cold War version ever be? Not a bad Michael Caine film which he just does for the money, just one he's done when there are no good scripts on offer!

Sad that this is the first film I have commented on, for most of the films I bother to vote on are good - but having just watched this, and been so disappointed, I must make the effort. Just how did Michael Caine, and other names I recoginised, get involved in such a film. Awful scriptwriting, wooden acting, poor editing, continuity and most other aspects of film-making. The camerawork was OTT using obtrusive 'effecty' shots and angles. Overuse of semi-naked girls added nothing to this almighty flop!

I first broke into the Harry Palmer series when I thought Midnight in St. Petersburg sounded like a good film in the TV guide, and it had Michael Caine in it. Since then (realising there was more of it)I've become quite a fan of the series, not really minding if it was the vintage 60s or the modern 90s.

Bullet to Beijing was the fourth film out of the five that I've seen (I've yet to see the somewhat rare Billion Dollar Brain) and I thought it was a good film, certainly worthy of at least a 6.5 rating on IMDB. I know fans of the vintage 60s were somewhat opposed to this even being made, because it was obviously not going to be as good as The Ipcress File.

And it's not. The Ipcress File is still the best of Harry Palmer, but I thought this was the second best of the series. I found Funeral in Berlin to be mind-numbingly tedious, and Midnight in St. Petersburg didn't quite live up to this one.

First thing, I'm going to address a few issues regarding plot holes or continuity. Make no mistake, this is one of those films you'll probably have to watch twice or even three times to fully comprehend all that's going on. You have to concentrate on it, you can't watch it and talk on the phone at the same time. So most plot holes are probably down to something the viewer missed (I certainly thought that the first time I watched it).

This certainly isn't vintage Palmer, and I give it credit for not trying to be. Palmer is on the verge of retirement anyway, and so he's not going to be as quick or sharp as he once was (at least they didn't try and pretend he was still young!). Even so, he's still somewhat quick-witted and amusing, the milk in the tea joke being my favourite. He doesn't run from danger, something present in all the movies, even when he's being followed by the mafia, he's fairly daring once he's got away from them.

As for the film itself, it's very fast-moving and fluid. There are a LOT of twists and turns in the plot, but I like the fact that's it's all within the time limit of the train arriving in Beijing, who's going to make it there etc. The trouble with something like the Ipcress File was the amount of free time Palmer had, and so it would sometimes seemingly stand still, whereas the train journey here gave it an edge.

That's my humble opinion anyway, maybe I'm just uncultured. This certainly doesn't have the class of the 60s, but it makes up for it with the action, humour and plot-twists.

8.5/10

Incidentally, if you can get hold of it, there's a special edition DVD where Sue Lloyd has a slightly bigger role than a voice on the telephone.

First of all, a Brit needs a visa to go to St. Petersburg , you can not get that on the border or airport it, takes days, only ships passengers can ashore in Russia for a matter of hours without a visa. Same goes for China, but there it takes weeks to get a visa, Mongolia I don't know about, but these requirements alone makes this unbelieavable.

And this is not apy film, it is some western crimes story set in the east, with the norks as bandits in cahoots with Russian bandits and a city woth 250 000 ingabitants is pictured like a village, where the local bar is in a grocery store. Run down lanes with passengers riding in bathrooms and flight desck makes you believe that the filmmakers changed their mind and opted for a comedy, rather bad.

This was a good addition to the harry palmer series. And of course caine is a great watch as always. The rest of the cast are pretty good in this film to. I think one problem with this film is it being a tv movie. Its a shame they didn't think the quality was good enough for thetres. That might have lead to their being no more films after the next one. Still it was an enjoyable enough watch with some good action scenes and wit. Overall it makes it a fun addition to the palmer series.

Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) the anti Bond of the 1960s spy capers returned in 1995. Ironically so did James Bond for the first time in the 1990s.

Whereas Goldeneye was an effective relaunch of the 007 saga.

The same cannot be said about Harry Palmer. Here he might as well be a different character.

In Bullet to Beijing, Palmer has been unceremoniously retried by British the security services.

He gets a job opportunity in St Petersburg by tycoon Alex (Michael Gambon) who wants Palmer to retrieve a biological weapon.

Palmer has a liaison called Nikolai (Jason Connery) who is half British and half Russian. He is in awe to Alex who he regards as the saviour of New Russia.

The film offers a lot of convoluted twists and turns. Yet there is something old fashioned about it.

Worse it comes across as a B rated action movie. That is very anti Palmer.

This ended up as a made for television movie. Director George Mihalka is workmanlike and brings nothing to the table like his predecessors such as Ken Russell or Guy Hamilton.

If you loved the Harry Palmer movies in the 1960s—The Ipcress File, Funeral in Berlin, and Billion Dollar Brain—you'll be happy to hear that thirty years later, Michael Caine agreed with you! He made two more Harry Palmer films, Bullet to Beijing and its sequel Midnight in Saint Petersburg, both costarring Jason Connery and Michael Gambon.

In this one, Michael Caine is forced to retire, but isn't slowed down a bit in his secret spy career. He's approached to work for Michael Gambon, with Jason Connery and Mia Sara as his colleagues, but who can he really trust? I really liked this spy thriller because it wasn't too complicated, so I could easily keep up with the plot twists. Some of the other Harry Palmer movies were a bit too complex for me. Also, even though Michael Caine makes several references to his age, since it's been thirty years since he played Harry Palmer, it's fun to see him still fighting the bad guys with as much pizazz as he had before. Jason and Mia are really likable, so there's plenty to root for in this movie. Rent it if you're a Michael Caine fan or are in the mood for a light action film, and for a double feature, rent the sequel!

A damn good cast and a good storyline....wasted and spoiled by poor acting by Jason Connery in a central role....definitely not a chip off the old block.

There's plenty to enjoy here, if one is patient with the dodgy script, editing, pacing, some of the acting... Caine has had flak for making turkeys, but has said that, after reading a poor review, he looks across at the swimming pool the film bought him.

Another view is that, after making Get Carter, Alfie, The Ipcress File, The Italian Job, The Man Who Would Be King, etc, he's allowed an actual 'bee movie' such as The Swarm, or Bullet To Beijing. The same applies to De Niro; after Taxi Driver, The Godfather, Raging Bull, he's allowed a 'Dirty Grandpa' or two.

'Bullet' obviously has the talent on board, but it's misused. Caine occasionally looks uncomfortable; his conversations with Connery Jr. Seem oddly paced; both plod on gamely. The 'bullet' is a gravy train, using the Harry Palmer identity as a vehicle to cover for the inexperience in the production.

Some of this may be due to it being a non-Hollywood affair, using European production staff and extras, the latter often milking their roles, though one wouldn't blame them for this. And this does mean some authentic and exotic locations are available. One quality performance worthy of a better film comes from Michael Gambon, as a lizardy dealer, a would-be Bond villain.

Apparently both Michaels needed bodyguards and protection from genuine Russian mobsters, who maybe wanted a 'piece of the action'; a much greater hazard than the occasional poor review.

If they wanted to make an ironic post glastnost Harry Palmer film why did they not ask me to write it! There is nothing of who Harry Palmer was in this film; it's trite, corny, contrived, and set in the worst stereotypical world. If you like Caine being Caine in an average spy spoof played for laughs, enjoy.

Good action, multiple plot twists, exotic locales. This has all you need in a spy caper. There are excellent well-shot action scenes, familiar faces, respect paid to the Russian location and people, and it all moves along at a decent fast pace.

People who hated this 1995 offering are always comparing it to the '60s trilogy of films. But they were made a lifetime ago! Harry Palmer was then touted as a less glamorous, thinking man's Bond. But the movies were still pretty fantastical and sensationalist.

A lot had changed since, and what was right for the big screen in the '60s would have to reinterpreted to a modern context. And for the small screen. The stylistic difference is therefore justified for that reason. The spy movie genre evidently isn't the best for keeping continuity, with the political landscape in constant flux. But espionage is something that will always be sensational. (That said, the stultifyingly vapid Blue Ice, another Michael Caine-led spy film released three years prior, failed to thrill - but that's just my opinion.)

The film would have been improved with a more dramatic score, and I'm sure it would have made greater impact, been more memorable, and be held in higher esteem if it had it. But for what Bullet to Beijing was - a direct-to-video movie - it was an impressive and enjoyable work. The storytelling and pacing made it feel like it could be a big-screen movie, and otherwise it hit the spot in the right places. Location shooting is not as common these days, so in a historical context, Bullet to Beijing is something that is getting rarer and more special by the day. This is despite contemporary reviewers apparently having been rather underwhelmed by it.

Although it's always a pleasure to watch Michael Caine -- even in stinkers such as "Blame It On Rio" -- there was little fun in this lame attempt at resurrecting the under-paid and melancholy British agent of the 1960s Harry Palmer. "Bullet to Beijing" has holes in the plot you could drive the Trans-Siberian Express through, with little of the humor and none of the style of "The Ipcress File" or "Funeral in Berlin". Poor Harry deserved better than this.

Bullet To Beijing (5) (1995) -

It's no wonder that people defect so often in these films when they get treated by their bosses as "Harry" did. These special agent characters get roped in for all the dirty work with apparently very little reward, look at poor old Mert Dayyyrman in the 'Bourne' films, they hunted that poor guy down like a dog and even 'James Bond' doesn't get it much better.

Personally, I thought that Mr. Caine, in the lead role, did look a bit out of place here though. A tad passed it to be playing the action hero. It appeared to me a bit like sending 'Alfred' out to do 'Batman's' work. And it was hard to see him as any kind of sex symbol that a woman might throw herself at.

But I can also only assume that Jason Connery had been better as 'Robin Hood?'*, because he was very wooden in this film and not even that good to look at, despite the attempt to prettify him with a bad blonde dye job. He also didn't exactly scream action hero.

Just like in the previous instalment of Harry's adventures, they all seemed to be working in circles - Robbing Pietr to pay Paulo to pay Harry to rob Pietr and so on. It felt as if they could have cut out the middle man and made it the plot to a half hour episode of some TV show instead, because it didn't really grip me as a feature film.

The whole thing was a bit contrived and once again there were too many factions so that I couldn't tell who was on who's side and none of them could shoot straight either. It was like watching a group of 'Star Wars' (1977) Stormtroopers picking up guns for the first time, because very few of them could hit a target at all.

And it was just generally quite silly, it's daft situations and puns, although they did get the flight with Aeroflot spot on. The last time I flew with them, I cried when we landed, while everyone else clapped or thanked God for the plane stopping before it hit the Airport Terminus.

That was the real life threatening moment in this film.

Overall this film couldn't have done much for Russia's tourism board, because it didn't show it as a pleasant place to visit in any way.

And the production values almost seemed to make it appear as a poor quality 1960's styled European film and not the usual British offering that I would expect from Michael, although I know he only did 'Jaws 4: The Revenge' (1987) so he could buy a new house and never even watched that film.

I did like the first two films featuring the 'Harry Palmer' character, who had been unnamed in the Len Deighton books, but the third and this fifth** attempt have been awful. I can only hope that the last of them - 'Midnight In St Petersburg' (1996), has a bit more effort put in to it.

320.21/1000.

*'Robin Of Sherwood' (1984-6)

**The fourth film 'Spy Story' (1976) was never released on DVD and currently unavailable on any subscription service, let alone shown on terrestrial TV.

Okay so it's not as good as the Ipcress File etc, but did anybody really expect that? Sure it doesn't all add up and the continuity is a bit suspect but I have to say that I really thought it was good fun. I was surprised to see it was made in 1995 because Jason Connery was sporting a very 1980's hair do, I actually thought it was Martin Fry from ABC. In summary, a bit shaky but it holds your attention throughout and has some good lines.