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!

Although it's always a pleasure to watch Michael Caine -- even in stinkers such as "Blame It On Rio" -- there was little fun in this lame attempt at resurrecting the under-paid and melancholy British agent of the 1960s Harry Palmer. "Bullet to Beijing" has holes in the plot you could drive the Trans-Siberian Express through, with little of the humor and none of the style of "The Ipcress File" or "Funeral in Berlin". Poor Harry deserved better than this.

Please disregard the review of this movie by "Dr_Yvon_COULARDEAU"......he clearly entered a review of some other film here by mistake....i think he was trying to review some version of "the Thomas Crown Affair".....first, there is no character in this movie named "Crown".........there is also no robbery with an insurance investigator involved.......i think it is odd that Dr_Yvon_COULARDEAU did not correct his mistake after he realized he reviewed the wrong movie........i think it is odd as well that no one from IMDb noticed either..........IMDb.......may i review a three stooges film and put it here or vice versa?.........Dr, a question.......do you often lose track of where you are?

I have seen and loved the original Harry Palmer movies and can tell you that this belated made-for-TV sequel does not measure up at all. BULLET TO BEIJING doesn't even deserve to be called a Harry Palmer film. It's like the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN of this series, only worse. None of the charm or intelligence of the original series remains. The score is terrible and the low-key script does more with bad comedy than it does with action. There is a single explosion which is entirely pointless. The plot is weak and the characters thin. This is a painfully television experience. Skip this failure and see THE IPCRESS FILE, FUNERAL IN BERLIN, or THE BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN. As Michael Caine said in his Golden Globes speech "I made a lot of crap" this is some of it. Burn every copy!

Like the man said you can't go home again and in most cases you shouldn't even try but as we all know Michael Caine is so afraid of winding up broke he'd even black up to play a spear carrier in a remake of Zulu. Although Caine is still the Harry Palmer of The Ipress File, Funeral In Berlin etc, Len Deighton didn't write so much as FADE IN on this one and all I can say is he must have got some serious wedge for the use of his creation. The plot, if you can call it that, needn't detain us, suffice it to say there is lots of shooting, blowing up and stuff of that ilk and about once every other Fall you can actually tell who is who and what side they're on. See it if you must.

Thankyou, thankyou, Mr Caine. The collapse of the cold war has somewhat put an end to our spy stories, but I was thrilled to get another Harry story. I have a little trouble coping with the slap stick humour in this movie. ( Perhaps I'm just two stiffer upper lip) Regard less loved it.

Having heard mixed reviews about this and it's follow up, which almost made Caine retire, I have to say it's better than I was expecting. True there are a lot of shady characters, Connery, Sara , Kwouk etc, but I think this leads to the thrill of the movie. However, it does look like a TV movie and the true bad guy hardly makes an appearance. Decent movie, nothing more.

Okay so it's not as good as the Ipcress File etc, but did anybody really expect that? Sure it doesn't all add up and the continuity is a bit suspect but I have to say that I really thought it was good fun. I was surprised to see it was made in 1995 because Jason Connery was sporting a very 1980's hair do, I actually thought it was Martin Fry from ABC. In summary, a bit shaky but it holds your attention throughout and has some good lines.

This was my kind of spy movie...really bad bad guys...really sexy sexpots...car chases...boat chases...mysterious trains crossing hostile borders and the worst gang of lousy shots you ever saw. They manage to dispatch any number of car windows but not very many people. But then it's hard to make a two hour movie if everybody dies in the first confrontation. Michael Caine is, well, Michael Caine. The plot is quite silly but that adds to its appeal. And there are great scenes in London, St. Petersberg and Siberia. The film captures the disorganized chaos of daily life in Russia and the devil may care attitudes of most Russians. (I've flown domestic routes on Aeroflot a couple of times. Believe me, the hilarious sequence in the movie of the flight to Irkutsk is not that much of an exaggeration.) It's probably more of a spoof than a spy thriller. But it's a damned good movie!

After 30 years Harry Palmer ( Michael Caine) returns a bit older but still amused and amusing. There are at least two versions of this film. In the one I own, Sue Lloyd makes a brief appearance as Harry's old girl friend Jean, now a blonde, sexy widow. They have a suggested sex scene. This was worth some of the lapses in the films storyline. However, I though Caine, Connery and Michael Gambon were all first rate and the running gags about redundant, over-the-hill secret agents worked for me.The locale of St Petersburg is fresh and the complications of plot ( who is one whose side), falling off the train, the problems of the decaying yet free market Soviet Union, etc. are interesting. I like BULLET and have actually watched it twice in 2 weeks. Too bad its sequel was a bit redundant itself.