Don't listen to the negative reviews

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

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.

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!

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.