Bullet to Beijing (1995)

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 films. But they were made a lifetime ago! Now lumped together as one tidy trilogy (due to the temporal proximity of their productions) Harry Palmer was then touted as a less glamorous, thinking man's Bond. But the movies were still pretty sensationalist and fantastical.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 - as well as for the lack of a big-screen budget! More impressive it should be that they got some big names for the project!! Spy movies aren't the greatest genre 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 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. Despite contemporary reviewers apparently having been rather underwhelmed by it.

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.

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 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.