Medianoche en San Petersburgo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.