Midnight in Saint Petersburg (1996)

Why so much hype?

It is a performances centric movie

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

After you've watched Bullet to Beijing, in which Michael Caine plays the famous fictional spy Harry Palmer, go out and rent the sequel Midnight in Saint Petersburg. Technically, you can watch this one by itself, but it starts up when the other ended, and so the ending of the first movie would be spoiled.Once again, Michael Caine finds himself mixed up with bad guys in Russia. He's trying to stop them from acquiring plutonium, and together with Jason Connery—who's just as adorable and endearing as he was in the first film—they head back to Saint Petersburg to save the world! One of my favorite scenes is when Michael finds a bomb in his office. He throws it out of the window, but a dog picks it up and starts running around with it. Michael and his Russian colleagues are shouting at the dog in different languages, trying to get him to drop the bomb, but he runs down an alley seconds before the explosion. Everyone is pretty depressed—and so is the audience—until the dog trots out of the alley, unscathed! Very tense, but with a happy ending.I liked these later Harry Palmer movies because they're pretty light and fun, without a lot of heavy drama or complicated plot points. Check them out for an afternoon marathon!

"Bullet To Beijing" was a more than decent attempt to revive and update the character of brains-before-brawn spy Harry Palmer for the post-Cold War era. This follow-up, filmed back-to-back with its predecessor with much of the same cast, does not live up to the same standards; it's uninspired and overly talky. Much of it consists of Harry Palmer going around and talking with each of the returning characters, without really getting anywhere until the last 20 minutes. Palmer will always be one of Michael Caine's trademark roles, but this time he doesn't seem to be as "into" it as before. Good location work in St. Petersburg cannot make up for the film's utter lack of narrative drive. ** out of 4.

Other reviews speak well of Caine's performance but I found him well below par. To be fair he has a dreadful script, an improbable storyline and no other star to live up to, but he looks just old, tired, (which he probably felt at the time), and miscast and it shows. The Harry Palmer of The Ipcress File fame is no more. Bullet to Beijing is better, quite a bit better, but that is also well below Caine's best. Connery is a nice looking young man, like his dad was, but his acting skills are modest. The stars of this film are the Russians! They give it a touch of authenticity and some can act.It is not hard to see why Disney dumped both these films. Harry Palmer done in by Bond was the phrase I read at the time. However on a final and slightly positive note: both films make grade B, require little thought and even less imagination. If you have nothing better to do then have a look to see how far the mighty can fall. You will sleep well after wards if you are not asleep before the end!

God help us! Another continuity faux-pas. In the scene of Connery greeting General Kornikov,he says he has been in Russia before and answers the General with "Very pleased (to meet you)". Nothing wrong with the words(in Russian) but they would make any Russian language student cringe - talk about butcher the language. Later, "Tatiana's" father walks across a bridge followed by Connery in a Volvo, ostensibly from the Hermitage - except that he's walking toward Nevskii Prospekt, not away ( I don't know, maybe I misunderstood the scene). Still, it's the worst example of Russian gangsterism versuses the spy world ever made. Want reality, try going there and trying to find someone to trust.