Midnight in Saint Petersburg (1996 TV Movie) User Reviews (23)

Wooden performances and a dreadful script

[penguin2212 · 4/10 · 27 September 2005]

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!

Sadly, a great opportunity was missed.

[wnewman106 · 4/10 · 9 April 2006]

What is wrong with movie writers, producers, and directors? There is a sizable market of baby-boomers who would love to see sequels of fondly remembered movies from the 60s, yet it seems that the powers-that-be are deliberately ruining virtually every opportunity to tap into that market. Granted the younger movie-going public has shown they have little or no attention span, but I have to believe that a good movie would appeal to enough of them to make some money. I cite (shudder) The Avengers and (retch) Wild Wild West as 2 of the worst offenders possible and the 2 90s Harry Palmer films aren't far behind them. Directors: WATCH SOME 60S MOVIES AND TRY TO RECAPTURE THE MAGIC. It is tough, if not impossible, to do, but you can do better than you have been doing. Using some of the original stars such as Michael Caine, Robert Vaughn, David McCallum, Robert Conrad or whomever is still this side of the sod would be wonderful, but it still would require a good script. The 2 Harry Palmer movies don't get it. The music is wrong, the car and boat chases are wrong, the ambiance is wrong, the supporting cast is wrong, etc. Do better while there is still time.

A 1990ies film in the style of 1970ies... Without a smooth run

[BeneCumb · 6/10 · 16 December 2012]

Compared to other Harry Palmer films, Midnight in Saint Petersburg is rather mediocre: rambling script, nothing-special cast (apart from two Sir Michaels: Caine and Gambon), uneven change of scenes. The latter is most annoying as you lose track of events sometimes and well performed scenes vary with cheaply filmed chases or scuffles.

The biggest value of this film to me is the filming location - Saint Petersbourg - as I spent several years there studying just some years before the film was shot. Thus, most of places were familiar to me - well, that could be a reason my focus could transfer from watching the events into watching the background, this beautiful city.

If you are eager to see all Palmer-related films, then do it and include the film in question. Otherwise, you might feel bored.

Average spy-stuff

[Bilstein · 13 April 2002]

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.

One outing too many for Harry Palmer

[unclecessna · 5/10 · 22 May 2010]

Every film series runs it's course eventually. Sometimes it's the audience that gets fatigued and votes with it's wallet by not attending the latest sequel and other times the latest sequel runs out of ideas and falls flat.

Harry Palmers audience did the first in 1968 with the ''Billion Dollar Brain'' - a smart adaption of Deighton's novel which itself was quite outlandish in comparison to the film versions of the ''Ipcress File'' and ''Funeral in Berlin''.

The second time a rejuvenated Harry Palmer series ran out of steam was in this film during which the latter happened.

Come the mid 1990's with dwindling good acting opportunities for Michael Caine and a new appetite for spy thrillers from cinema-goers two more Harry Palmer films were committed to celluloid. The first ''Bullet to Beijing'' was a nice if flawed reunion movie for an older Harry Palmer but it's sequel here ''Midnight in St. Petersburg gets swiftly derailed by a bankrupt script and lower budget.

The problem is that it very much plays like a remake of it's immediate predecessor only with a much smaller scope and budget. It even revolves around a film studio location in it's later stages...

The plot is Harry Palmer has set up a private investigation agency in Russia and he has to search for some stolen Plutonion as well as his assistants ballerina girlfriend who has been abducted. The two story strands come together in the films finale at midnight in St. Petersburg.

Michael Caine is always entertaining as Harry Palmer but he looks bored here. Some of the supporting actors are quite good and some are just plain bad. The dialogue is very poor at times and it's all quite forgettable.

That said if you don't compare it to the other films in the series it is reasonably entertaining overall and there are a few genuinely good scenes in the film. But it was definitely a sequel too many for Harry Palmer I'm sure most would agree.

I Miss St Petersburg

[rwhaller42 · 5/10 · 2 August 2005]

Well, as a movie, it isn't that great, very predictable, specially who the bad one is. How ever, I have been going to St Petersburg just about every year since 1998, but not this year :( and it really made me miss her.

What I liked about the movie was that it should a lot of real Russians (like at the Circus) and had many Russian actors, and pretty realistically portrayed St Petersburg, including the feuds between the mafias at that time, and the checking for weapons at some popular restaurants. I also recognized the interior of the Nevskii Palac which has since changed hands but is still a ***** hotel. I stayed across the street once and around the corner once for a week in Russian style flats for what they want for a night ;-) I don't speak fluent Russian, but I know enough to understand that he was told to meet the guy that was shot at the Leningradky Vokzahl (railway station) by the statue of Lenin. This is a famous place in SPB, one of the few public statues of Lenin still existing and people jokingly mention that he looks like he is trying to flag down a 'cab' (not an official one of course, just any car, including an army vehicle, that might be headed in the right direction). So when he makes the misleading statements about going to Moskow and shows up at the Moskovsky Vokszhal I was wondering what they would do until he took another cab to the right place. Rarely do I get the 'insider's thrill' like this'.

Not a movie to watch if you want great cinema, but one to see for glimpses of real Russia. I also liked that the Russians were not the bad guys per se and vice versa.

Could have been a much better movie. I was not surprised to learn it was 'made for TV'. Michael Caine was Michael Caine, which is to say the character fits him like a glove, but he did seem to be mailing his performance in. Needed a much stronger director I think.

Great scenary and little else

[Jim Tritten · 2/10 · 2 March 2002]

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.....

Fun, light action film

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 27 November 2017]

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!

Inferior follow-up to "Bullet To Beijing"

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 30 September 2011]

"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.

Forget all the rest except Saint Petersburg

[clanciai · 7/10 · 15 May 2023]

What saves this film is the many glorious sightseeing tours all around the beautiful Saint Petersburg with its canals and churches and incredible palaces, and the beautiful music by Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky and Chopin like an exquisite frame around a very ordinary picture. Michael Caine was not happy about this film and I guess nobody was. It's a very ordinary plot about political intrigue involving the stealing of some plutonium and using it for international extortion, for which case Harry Palmer is summoned to Saint Petersburg to bring some order into the mess of the chaos of Yeltsin's Russia with maffias setting the rules, bringing out the worst nightmares of Chicago in the bootlegging days, and with Michael Gambon as some pope of the criminal underground world, using pretty girls for his schemes, not entirely successfully, as not even Michael Caine is easily fooled by a beautiful girl. The film gives a vivid picture of the random lawlessness of Yeltsin's Russia with privatisation turning the country upside down by capitalistic turmoil in the hands of gangsters, but all you will remember of the film is all the beautiful sceneries of Saint Petersburg. There are some great ballet scenes as well and visits at a circus and a very posh night club, but forget about the plutonium. It was all fake, invented by the author to make a best-seller.

not even funny

[elven-798-665821 · 4/10 · 22 September 2013]

All that's missing from the script is a big flashing light on the screen every time an important plot point is mentioned. Probably the worst script Michael Caines ever worked with and he'd just done Bullet to Beijing. Fortunately the direction's nearly as bad, but you still feel some sympathy for the actors, if not the characters. Still you will know that the Russian for Thankyou is spaseeba, it seems to be added to the end of every English sentence. Michael Caine's as watchable as ever but Harry Palmer should have stopped with Billion Dollar Brain, as sequels go this is slightly less worthwhile than the science.

Not bad, although not a patch on the '60s films

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 24 May 2017]

MIDNIGHT IN SAINT PETERSBURG is the second in a pair of Harry Palmer spy cheapies, following on from BULLET TO BEIJING with which it was shot back-to-back. These television movies have nothing of the atmosphere or style of the original IPCRESS FILE trilogy from the 1960s, although Michael Caine fans might find them interesting regardless. They were made by exploitation producer Harry Alan Towers, a hard-working industry presence ever since the 1960s.

This film sees Caine's spy teaming up with a younger model (the nice-but-wooden Jason Connery) to tackle some nefarious Russian mobsters. The plot is surprisingly fast-moving and features a few scenes of action and suspense which work quite well, although I wish there were more of them. A fight between Connery and an assassin on a train harks back to his father's glory days in From Russia with Love. The supporting cast sees Michael Gambson attempting an ill-advised Russian accent and failing.

Midnight in Saint Petersburg

[Prismark10 · 3/10 · 8 May 2021]

Bullet To Beijing and Midnight in Saint Petersburg were Harry Palmer films that were made back to back.

Both were rather awful and really did not have the feel of the 1960s Harry Palmer films.

Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) has set up a private investigation agency in Russia with Nick Petrov (Jason Connery) and the ex CIA Agent Craig.

They have been hired to locate some missing plutonium. Nick is detoured to find his missing girlfriend who has been abducted. Her father is a curator in a museum with valuable artwork. Somehow both stories merge.

Once again, rival gangsters from Bullet To Beijing involved. There are double crosses and an easy to spot mole.

Thankfully a character at the end of this movie explains the plot. Art for cash. Then cash for plutonium.

There are nice location shots of Saint Petersburg. Apart from that it looks rather cheap, the script is bad and it did not remind of anything from the pen of Len Deighton.

Sequel to BULLET TO BEIJING not as good

[pasta-6 · 20 September 1999]

Caine's return to the Harry Palmer character in BULLET TO BEIJING seemed to the beginning of a new series. Complex and amusing, it had novelty and Caine's great performance. Now comes the sequel and it seems a bit of a retread of the first film. I would guess they were shot back-to-back because of the re-use of many characters and sets.This one replaces biological warfare with Plutonium as the evil substance and features no prolonged train trips. The plot is not too surprising and the secret double agent easy to spot. Too bad they could not have tried again. Maybe filming HORSE UNDER WATER ( updated) might have been fun.

A bad Harry Palmer film?!

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 19 January 2024]

Over the years, Michael Caine has played the spy Harry Palmer in five different movies. The first three were in wonderful stories written by Len Deighton...the latter two were made years later and were not from Deighton stories.

In "Midnight in Saint Petersburg", you find Palmer in post-Cold War Russia. Now instead of being a spy, he is head of an organization which is best described as non-military mercenaries. They take care of problems...and send you a bill.

In this story, someone has stolen some nuclear fuel...enough to make several bombs. Their job is to find the material and return it. There are other plot elements, such as a kidnapped ballerina and various attempts to stop Palmer.

This made for Showtime film has one thing going for it...it was filmed in Saint Petersburg. Apart from that, the story is pretty dull and VERY talky. Despite being a Harry Palmer film, there really isn't much action and the film put me to sleep.

Both Michael's were slumming it a bit with this one.

[adamjohns-42575 · 3/10 · 4 March 2023]

Midnight In Saint Petersburg (6) (1996) -

This film was so obviously made for TV, because the production values and most of the actors were absolutely awful and it seemed more like it had been made in the 80's rather than the 90's, especially the synthesised backing soundtrack.

And Jason Connery's, Nikolai was the worst agent I've seen since I watched him in the previous film, 'Bullet To Beijing' (1995) and he delivered some of the worst acting I've ever seen too. He just had nothing going for him, no charisma or depth at all. The character actually came across as more trouble than he was worth in the end, leaving Harry (Michael Caine) to solve everything instead.

I couldn't help but enjoy Michael's character though. His delivery was entertaining if nothing else, although very typically him. He would have been better as the man in the chair at head office by the time this was filmed though. His running through the streets of Russia days were a bit behind him.

However, it was clear why Mike Myers cast him as the secret agent Dad in 'Austin Powers In Goldmember' (2002), based on what he delivered here.

I wouldn't say that this film was as bad as the last one, but it certainly wasn't as good as the first two in the series. It was all quite obvious who was doing what for whom as well, with no actual espionage really going on, where previously it was all too convoluted, this time it went too far the other way.

The ending was also really badly edited and I never found out who the Hell hired Harry in the first place either.

I don't know if Len Deighton, the writer who created these characters, disassociated himself from these later instalments, but I would understand if he had. While I might return to 'The Ipcress File' (1965) and 'Funeral In Berlin' (1966), I will not watch the rest of them again. Perhaps Mr. Deighton's books give a better account of things and better stories to start with? If I find the time, I might try them out.

324.11/1000.

an alright sequal

[LetsReviewThat26 · 5/10 · 6 September 2022]

This sequal to bullet to beijing was ok. I don't feel like it was as good as that film and there was not enough memorable pieces to it. Its a film that didn't really need to be a sequal and almost worked better as a standalone, if it was not for the returning characters. I also felt we needed more gambon as he was not all that featured in this. The plot about finding missing plutonium was a little watered down and never really went anywhere. But the cast were all still good and once again it was enjoyable to see caine back at it for the last time as palmer and probably for the best as well as the character is a little worn out now. Overall not as great as the other movie and almost not a good end to what was otherwise a pretty good series.

Harry should've stayed in the Sixties

[neil-douglas2010 · 6/10 · 11 August 2022]

Slightly better than better than Bullet to Beijing, this fifth installment of the Harry Palmer series of films is no match for the first two.

Being a TV movie you just don't get the same action or suspense of a proper cinematic movie and Caine is just going through the motions.

Connery is ok as Nick and the rest of the cast are passable to, but that's the main problem of a film about stolen art and plutonium. It's just not exciting enough.

On the plus side at under 90 minutes the film doesn't outstay it's welcome.

Dire

[gary-tuffy · 1/10 · 4 June 2011]

A movie in which the main characters show why they're well regarded actors and serve to show up the remainder of the cast who deliver wooden performances with clichéd dialogue. Shame on you Michaels Caine and Gambon for taking on such a woeful movie. Were you looking for the rent money that week?

The plot is, at best, hackneyed standard spy stuff and any plot twists feel forced and pointless. The main premise of an art heist from the Hermitage is barely believable and plays to the stereotype of the corrupt Russian gangsters a bit too heavily.

If you ever think a couple of hours could be well spent watching this movie, think again. Go do your hair, watch the fish moult or weed the cat! Just don't watch this movie for your sanity's sake.

A dark night indeed

[Coffeecat · 4/10 · 20 October 2002]

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.

A Second inferior offering from Harry Palmer.

[harveyvilla · 1/10 · 29 November 2018]

All that needs to be said is do not try reliving the good times if of the past....it's never as good...and so it goes with movies. IPCRESS, Funeral in Berlin and to a lesser degree Billion Dollar Brain were masterpieces of their time. This and Bullet to Beijing are mediocre straight to video type films...nice workmanlike films...but you can never recapture past glories. I hope that Harrison Ford takes this on board when he thinks of reprising Indiana Jones..

Location,Location.

[sjm136 · 8 June 2000]

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.

A cure for insomnia ?

[grunsel · 24 May 2011]

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.