Bullet to Beijing

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.

Michael Caine reprises his portrayal of the Len Deighton character "Harry Palmer" in this rather cheap and cheerful cold-war thriller. This time he joins forces with the handsome, but lightweight, Jason Connery ("Nick") as they work for the enigmatic "Alex" (an unlikely Russian Michael Gambon) to thwart a deadly plan to release a virus that has been pinched by some North Koreans. A few other familiar faces try their best to pep this along, but it's really just an amalgam of themes that is well past it's sell by date. Caine is there, but he isn't - maybe another swimming pool? The dialogue is really pretty pedestrian (though the "we're all getting a bit too old for this" byline does raise a smile now and again). It's got plenty of stylish location photography and the action scenes - of which there is a distinct paucity - are quite good fun when we get them. Otherwise, it's a mediocre television movie that I found placed the "Palmer' character in a series of fish-out-of-water scenarios that rather undermined the charm and novelty of his earlier outings. Caine can carry a film, his sheer weight of personality does that here - but this is certainly nobody's finest work.

This is a fairly misleading film. First of all, there is no bullet train in the film; it is the slow boat to China on rails. The acting, after Caine and Connery, tends to fall off quite a bit. The sets are a bit amateurish, and the script and dialogue are questionable, at best.

There are plenty of red herrings; but then again, there should be since we are in Russia. Some of the "surprises" were a just a bit too much to take, but I will let you judge that at the end.

One sequence is obviously a studio shot on a set, as there are no believable citizens standing around. Other than these foibles, the film is fairly watchable, and the showcasing of Mr. Connery is impressive; he showed promise in this film. Unfortunately, his career did not take off afterwards.

After 30 years Harry Palmer ( Michael Caine) returns a bit older but still amused and amusing. There are at least two versions of this film. In the one I own, Sue Lloyd makes a brief appearance as Harry's old girl friend Jean, now a blonde, sexy widow. They have a suggested sex scene. This was worth some of the lapses in the films storyline. However, I though Caine, Connery and Michael Gambon were all first rate and the running gags about redundant, over-the-hill secret agents worked for me.The locale of St Petersburg is fresh and the complications of plot ( who is one whose side), falling off the train, the problems of the decaying yet free market Soviet Union, etc. are interesting. I like BULLET and have actually watched it twice in 2 weeks. Too bad its sequel was a bit redundant itself.

Okay so it's not as good as the Ipcress File etc, but did anybody really expect that? Sure it doesn't all add up and the continuity is a bit suspect but I have to say that I really thought it was good fun. I was surprised to see it was made in 1995 because Jason Connery was sporting a very 1980's hair do, I actually thought it was Martin Fry from ABC. In summary, a bit shaky but it holds your attention throughout and has some good lines.