Good action, multiple plot twists, exotic locales. This has all you need in a spy caper. There are excellent well-shot action scenes, familiar faces, respect paid to the Russian location and people, and it all moves along at a decent fast pace.
People who hated this 1995 offering are always comparing it to the '60s trilogy of films. But they were made a lifetime ago! Harry Palmer was then touted as a less glamorous, thinking man's Bond. But the movies were still pretty fantastical and sensationalist.
A lot had changed since, and what was right for the big screen in the '60s would have to reinterpreted to a modern context. And for the small screen. The stylistic difference is therefore justified for that reason. The spy movie genre evidently isn't the best for keeping continuity, with the political landscape in constant flux. But espionage is something that will always be sensational. (That said, the stultifyingly vapid Blue Ice, another Michael Caine-led spy film released three years prior, failed to thrill - but that's just my opinion.)
The film would have been improved with a more dramatic score, and I'm sure it would have made greater impact, been more memorable, and be held in higher esteem if it had it. But for what Bullet to Beijing was - a direct-to-video movie - it was an impressive and enjoyable work. The storytelling and pacing made it feel like it could be a big-screen movie, and otherwise it hit the spot in the right places. Location shooting is not as common these days, so in a historical context, Bullet to Beijing is something that is getting rarer and more special by the day. This is despite contemporary reviewers apparently having been rather underwhelmed by it.
People who hated this 1995 offering are always comparing it to the '60s trilogy of films. But they were made a lifetime ago! Harry Palmer was then touted as a less glamorous, thinking man's Bond. But the movies were still pretty fantastical and sensationalist.
A lot had changed since, and what was right for the big screen in the '60s would have to reinterpreted to a modern context. And for the small screen. The stylistic difference is therefore justified for that reason. The spy movie genre evidently isn't the best for keeping continuity, with the political landscape in constant flux. But espionage is something that will always be sensational. (That said, the stultifyingly vapid Blue Ice, another Michael Caine-led spy film released three years prior, failed to thrill - but that's just my opinion.)
The film would have been improved with a more dramatic score, and I'm sure it would have made greater impact, been more memorable, and be held in higher esteem if it had it. But for what Bullet to Beijing was - a direct-to-video movie - it was an impressive and enjoyable work. The storytelling and pacing made it feel like it could be a big-screen movie, and otherwise it hit the spot in the right places. Location shooting is not as common these days, so in a historical context, Bullet to Beijing is something that is getting rarer and more special by the day. This is despite contemporary reviewers apparently having been rather underwhelmed by it.