Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Bene Cumb 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.

Gary Tuffy A movie in which the main characters show why they're well regarded actors and serve to show up the remainder of the cast who deliver wooden performances with clichéd dialogue. Shame on you Michaels Caine and Gambon for taking on such a woeful movie. Were you looking for the rent money that week? The plot is, at best, hackneyed standard spy stuff and any plot twists feel forced and pointless. The main premise of an art heist from the Hermitage is barely believable and plays to the stereotype of the corrupt Russian gangsters a bit too heavily.If you ever think a couple of hours could be well spent watching this movie, think again. Go do your hair, watch the fish moult or weed the cat! Just don't watch this movie for your sanity's sake.

penguin2212 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!

Coffeecat 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.