Good movie but grossly overrated

Fantastic!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.