elven-798-665821 All that's missing from the script is a big flashing light on the screen every time an important plot point is mentioned. Probably the worst script Michael Caines ever worked with and he'd just done Bullet to Beijing. Fortunately the direction's nearly as bad, but you still feel some sympathy for the actors, if not the characters. Still you will know that the Russian for Thankyou is spaseeba, it seems to be added to the end of every English sentence. Michael Caine's as watchable as ever but Harry Palmer should have stopped with Billion Dollar Brain, as sequels go this is slightly less worthwhile than the science.

grunsel Every time I woke up during this film there seemed to be Caine jumping in a car and rushing off somewhere.If it was trying to capture the magic of the first three Palmer films then it failed miserably,not just because they were the product of a different time and atmosphere, but because its a muddle to a point I really didn't have a clue what was going on, just a lot of cars buzzing about,old factories and the usual rat-tat-tat dialogue. While Caine was hungry for the fame in the first Palmer pictures and acted accordingly, he is not hungry anymore here and is obviously just Michael Caine acting as Michael Caine, but its not all his fault as he has no foil here to bounce off due to the dull co-stars.

unclecessna Every film series runs it's course eventually. Sometimes it's the audience that gets fatigued and votes with it's wallet by not attending the latest sequel and other times the latest sequel runs out of ideas and falls flat.Harry Palmers audience did the first in 1968 with the ''Billion Dollar Brain'' - a smart adaption of Deighton's novel which itself was quite outlandish in comparison to the film versions of the ''Ipcress File'' and ''Funeral in Berlin''.The second time a rejuvenated Harry Palmer series ran out of steam was in this film during which the latter happened.Come the mid 1990's with dwindling good acting opportunities for Michael Caine and a new appetite for spy thrillers from cinema-goers two more Harry Palmer films were committed to celluloid. The first ''Bullet to Beijing'' was a nice if flawed reunion movie for an older Harry Palmer but it's sequel here ''Midnight in St. Petersburg gets swiftly derailed by a bankrupt script and lower budget.The problem is that it very much plays like a remake of it's immediate predecessor only with a much smaller scope and budget. It even revolves around a film studio location in it's later stages...The plot is Harry Palmer has set up a private investigation agency in Russia and he has to search for some stolen Plutonion as well as his assistants ballerina girlfriend who has been abducted. The two story strands come together in the films finale at midnight in St. Petersburg.Michael Caine is always entertaining as Harry Palmer but he looks bored here. Some of the supporting actors are quite good and some are just plain bad. The dialogue is very poor at times and it's all quite forgettable.That said if you don't compare it to the other films in the series it is reasonably entertaining overall and there are a few genuinely good scenes in the film. But it was definitely a sequel too many for Harry Palmer I'm sure most would agree.

Bilstein I know there was a split between people who were pro or con, to the revival of Harry Palmer in Bullet to Beijing. Personally, I was pro, and I thought BTB was an excellent film. This one picks up where BTB left off, and all in all, it's a pretty routine affair.It's completely lacking in suspense or tension for one thing. Much of the dialogue was questionable, and the storyline was basically a re-hash of the former (plutonium replaces the allorax). There is the odd funny moment, but nothing much, although the plot does stay together, and is much easier to follow than Bullet.Thank goodness for Michael Caine. Quite honestly, if it weren't for him, I could have seen the rating dropping to below a 4. The guys in his business also do quite well, although it would have been nice to see more of them (Lev Prygunov in particular, he was good as Colonel Gradsky). Also, Olga Anokhina did well as Greta, and I could see a character in there that could have been developed a lot further. Pity that Craig's character was developed about as far as possible in Bullet, as it made him seem a lot less interesting here.Jason Connery is a questionable point. He was undeniably wooden in both films, but I thought it actually suited his character in Bullet. A solemn character who becomes less wooden as we learn more about him. Here though, he was back to wooden, and seems to have taken steps back. Him and Tanya Jackson were made for each other in this film; she wasn't much better.Although the double-crosser was predictable, the actor/actress who played the character was very good (I can't say the name, or it'll give it away). The character seemed very nice and friendly, then turned completely to stone, and it was even surprising how ruthless that character became. Top marks there.All in all, an average spy-thriller, nothing much more. If you were against Bullet, then certainly avoid this at all costs. If you liked Bullet, then by all means give this a go, but don't expect it to be anywhere near as good.5/10 - The comments about the circus were pretty amusing though.