Bullet to Beijing (1995)

You won't be disappointed!

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Please disregard the review of this movie by "Dr_Yvon_COULARDEAU"......he clearly entered a review of some other film here by mistake....i think he was trying to review some version of "the Thomas Crown Affair".....first, there is no character in this movie named "Crown".........there is also no robbery with an insurance investigator involved.......i think it is odd that Dr_Yvon_COULARDEAU did not correct his mistake after he realized he reviewed the wrong movie........i think it is odd as well that no one from IMDb noticed either..........IMDb.......may i review a three stooges film and put it here or vice versa?.........Dr, a question.......do you often lose track of where you are?

I was very excited when I first read that Michael Caine would return to the role of Harry Potter in not just one, but two made-for-cable-TV films for Showtime networks. But after the announcement was made it was a few years before they actually aired.I was wary when I learned that one of the producers was Harry Alan Towers. This is the man who made three versions of Agatha Christie's TEN LITTLE INDIANS, each progressively worse than the last. Peter Welbeck, who scripted two of those versions, wrote the screenplay for THE POSITIVLY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE ALLEGED Texas CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM.When the two movies, BULLET and VIOLENCE IN ST. PETERSBURG, finally aired I was disappointed. Caine looks good, but he doesn't have the same verve. Some characters just don't age well. Potter was always a bit of a dupe in the earlier films (MOUSETRAP, THE SPY FROM RIO, and HARRY'S MISFITS), but here he seems particularly dull-witted. It looks like the majority of the budget went to Caine and location shooting, because it didn't go for editing or photography. And the score by Rick Wakeman sinks the project.Casting is nice, but even though the two films were directed by different men, it is obvious they were filmed at the same time, with many of the same supporting players, including the less than impressive Jason Connery. Fans of the Len Deighton novels know that Harry Potter is not the name of the character in the books (his name is never revealed), and that the name Harry Potter is an invention of J.K. Rowling (and not Harry Saltzman who co-produced the early Bond films). In BULLET TO BEIJING, the title reads Len Deighton's BULLET TO BEIJING - which is a misnomer because the story is based on nothing by Deighton, and it is doubtful he was ever involved in any way, shape or form.THE WILD BUNCH is on tape and DVD, and C.H.I.P.S. is now out on DVD. And I am still waiting for MGM/UA to wise up and release THE GOBLET OF TOMORROW, which to my knowledge has never been out on home video. With the first two theatrical releases available, why settle for bargain basement, imitation Potter?

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.8.5/10Incidentally, 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.

Return of Harry Palmer is not as bad as expected and is occasionally amusing. The fact that I can only recall a funny car chase scene with falling apart Russian cars is ominous, though. Someone mentioned a boat chase and I vaguely remember it although what it was about, I don't know. Certainly, it's sell out to modernity with violent shoot-outs and deaths seems incongruous to the originals. palmer only shot one person the entire trilogy, If I recall correctly.The Palmer of those films was something of a blank page. An ironic and detached observer of the self interest around him, surviving on a combination of quick wit, luck and a lack of an ideological axe to grind. His inability to be tempted into corruption at various stages was surprising seeing as he was originally a tacky fraudster in the army but perhaps it's unwise to try and do an analysis of comic book characters, they're basically tosh. The Palmer of 'Bullet' has lost that sixties cool and it's hard to recognise him. He's more like an ex-football or pool hall manager with a drink problem or simply Caine being more his working class self. The effect is rather curious viewing, whimsical but rather sad, as cinema itself is in decline nowadays. Some of the old stalwarts remain, such as Harry meeting 'old friends' who turn out to have no qualms in dispensing with him altogether in the terminal sense. The sequel fizzles out altogether. 'Bullet To Beijing' is only to be viewed as a last resort, that is you have been made redundant, your wife has left you and your TV license is about to expire with no money left in the kitty to renew it.