Midnight in Saint Petersburg (1996)

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.

It's hard to believe that Michael Caine would have affiliated with so poorly done a film, but there he is, all grins and deer in the headlights stare. The film, which was produced for Showtime, has the episodic pacing of a TV series pilot, marred by an average cast struggling with a sub-average script. The thin plot line about missing plutonium and a suspected art heist is filled out with endless shots of the most touristic sights of St. Petersburg, including two rival, and not very competent, gangs of the Russian mafia. It's fun for the scenery up to a point, but cliched to a frightening degree. Caine is good even when he's bad, but this is as lackluster as I have ever seen him.

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.

Artistic shots in and around St. Petersburg are most enjoyable parts of this otherwise unmemorable film. Story line is a bit much. If you have never been to St. Petersburg, enjoy the the cinematography and turn off the sound.....