Pluskylang Great Film overall

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

HotToastyRag If you loved the Harry Palmer movies in the 1960s—The Ipcress File, Funeral in Berlin, and Billion Dollar Brain—you'll be happy to hear that thirty years later, Michael Caine agreed with you! He made two more Harry Palmer films, Bullet to Beijing and its sequel Midnight in Saint Petersburg, both costarring Jason Connery and Michael Gambon.In this one, Michael Caine is forced to retire, but isn't slowed down a bit in his secret spy career. He's approached to work for Michael Gambon, with Jason Connery and Mia Sara as his colleagues, but who can he really trust? I really liked this spy thriller because it wasn't too complicated, so I could easily keep up with the plot twists. Some of the other Harry Palmer movies were a bit too complex for me. Also, even though Michael Caine makes several references to his age, since it's been thirty years since he played Harry Palmer, it's fun to see him still fighting the bad guys with as much pizazz as he had before. Jason and Mia are really likable, so there's plenty to root for in this movie. Rent it if you're a Michael Caine fan or are in the mood for a light action film, and for a double feature, rent the sequel!

Dirt_Britland I was very excited when I first read that Michael Caine would return to the role of Harry Potter in not just one, but two made-for-cable-TV films for Showtime networks. But after the announcement was made it was a few years before they actually aired.I was wary when I learned that one of the producers was Harry Alan Towers. This is the man who made three versions of Agatha Christie's TEN LITTLE INDIANS, each progressively worse than the last. Peter Welbeck, who scripted two of those versions, wrote the screenplay for THE POSITIVLY TRUE ADVENTURES OF THE ALLEGED Texas CHEERLEADER-MURDERING MOM.When the two movies, BULLET and VIOLENCE IN ST. PETERSBURG, finally aired I was disappointed. Caine looks good, but he doesn't have the same verve. Some characters just don't age well. Potter was always a bit of a dupe in the earlier films (MOUSETRAP, THE SPY FROM RIO, and HARRY'S MISFITS), but here he seems particularly dull-witted. It looks like the majority of the budget went to Caine and location shooting, because it didn't go for editing or photography. And the score by Rick Wakeman sinks the project.Casting is nice, but even though the two films were directed by different men, it is obvious they were filmed at the same time, with many of the same supporting players, including the less than impressive Jason Connery. Fans of the Len Deighton novels know that Harry Potter is not the name of the character in the books (his name is never revealed), and that the name Harry Potter is an invention of J.K. Rowling (and not Harry Saltzman who co-produced the early Bond films). In BULLET TO BEIJING, the title reads Len Deighton's BULLET TO BEIJING - which is a misnomer because the story is based on nothing by Deighton, and it is doubtful he was ever involved in any way, shape or form.THE WILD BUNCH is on tape and DVD, and C.H.I.P.S. is now out on DVD. And I am still waiting for MGM/UA to wise up and release THE GOBLET OF TOMORROW, which to my knowledge has never been out on home video. With the first two theatrical releases available, why settle for bargain basement, imitation Potter?

Bilstein 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.

alanpuzey Sad that this is the first film I have commented on, for most of the films I bother to vote on are good - but having just watched this, and been so disappointed, I must make the effort. Just how did Michael Caine, and other names I recoginised, get involved in such a film. Awful scriptwriting, wooden acting, poor editing, continuity and most other aspects of film-making. The camerawork was OTT using obtrusive 'effecty' shots and angles. Overuse of semi-naked girls added nothing to this almighty flop!