'Midnight In St. Petersburg' (1996) Movie of 11th Harry Palmer Installment

'Midnight in St. Petersburg' (1996) is the second of two late-era Harry Palmer films starring Michael Caine, and is the 11th and last installment in the Harry Palmer series.

The movie follows 'Bullet to Beijing' (1995). Both were low-budget attempts to revive Len Deighton’s iconic anti-Bond figure, transplanting the sardonic, working-class British spy from the grey bureaucracy of the Cold War to the chaotic, capitalist wilds of post-Soviet Russia. Unfortunately, what might have been a ripe setting for thoughtful espionage or political commentary is instead reduced to a thinly plotted thriller that leans more on nostalgia than substance.

The film opens with Palmer now operating in St. Petersburg as the head of a private security firm, having fully stepped away from the British intelligence community. This move—consistent with Palmer’s long-standing cynicism—has potential. He’s now an outsider in a foreign land, surrounded by corruption, violence, and opportunism. But the film barely explores this tension. Instead, it offers a convoluted plot involving stolen plutonium, kidnapped daughters, and underworld gang feuds. The premise, like the setting, is rich with potential but handled with mechanical predictability.

Michael Caine reprises his role with familiar ease. He still carries the understated charm and wry wit that made Harry Palmer a compelling foil to the glamour of James Bond. Caine's Palmer never runs, rarely panics, and almost always seems slightly amused by the absurdity around him. But even his charisma cannot disguise the limitations of the script. Palmer in 'Midnight in St. Petersburg' feels less like a man with agency and more like a placeholder in a series of loosely connected events.

The film reuses many of the characters introduced in 'Bullet to Beijing', including Jason Connery’s Nikolai, though none are especially well-developed. Connery’s performance is serviceable but lacks gravitas, serving mostly as a narrative tool rather than a character in his own right. Michael Gambon, a fine actor, appears again as the shady fixer Alex, but like much of the film, his talents are squandered in a role that feels underwritten and inconsequential.

Visually, the film attempts to capitalise on the crumbling grandeur of post-Soviet Russia. The decaying architecture, icy streets, and air of instability offer a potentially atmospheric backdrop. However, the cinematography and direction do little to exploit this environment. Scenes are often flatly lit, lacking the tension or texture needed to elevate the atmosphere. There's little sense of place, despite the title, and St. Petersburg becomes merely a vague backdrop for generic spy antics.

Pacing is also a problem. The film stumbles through its 90 minutes with little sense of urgency or buildup. Despite the presence of plutonium smuggling—a plot device that should carry weight and danger—the stakes feel strangely low. There's little suspense, and what action there is comes across as perfunctory. Gunfights and confrontations appear more as afterthoughts than climactic set pieces. It’s as if the film is ticking boxes rather than building a story.

Perhaps most disappointing is how 'Midnight in St. Petersburg' fails to evolve its protagonist. Harry Palmer is a character born from scepticism and class consciousness, a spy who worked not for Queen and Country but because it was a job. In this new Russia, where money and power have replaced ideology, one might expect Palmer to either adapt or resist, to offer some wry commentary or moral reckoning. Instead, he seems adrift, moving through the narrative without much thought or resistance, as though even he realises the story isn’t worth getting worked up about.

In conclusion, 'Midnight in St. Petersburg' is a faint echo of the original Harry Palmer films. While Michael Caine continues to embody the character with conviction and quiet humour, the surrounding film is thin, disjointed, and uninspired. The political and cultural upheavals of 1990s Russia offer a promising canvas, but the film paints only in the broadest, dullest strokes. For long-time fans of Palmer, it might serve as a nostalgic footnote. For others, it’s likely to feel like the last gasp of a once-sharp character caught in a story far beneath his potential.