Bullet to Beijing

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 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.

Thankyou, thankyou, Mr Caine. The collapse of the cold war has somewhat put an end to our spy stories, but I was thrilled to get another Harry story. I have a little trouble coping with the slap stick humour in this movie. ( Perhaps I'm just two stiffer upper lip) Regard less loved it.

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.

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.