Funeral in Berlin

This is my favourite of the three Harry Palmer films (I don't count the 90s remake.) This film is accurately done and goes at a sensible pace – however, those people looking for computerised special effects and exploding cars are watching the wrong film.

The plot is really good and makes absolute sense – if you follow it closely. There is also the wonderful dry wit between Palmer and his commanding officer.

Palmer: I didn't pick her up; she picked me up.

Ross: Well you'd have to say that to get it on expenses.

Also, you should watch this in widescreen – there are some subtle details, which are left out at the edge of the screen. Including the subtle way in which Sam first picks up Harry at the hotel. However, unlike most "Spy" films we are not subjected to the obligatory soft porn sequence.

Listen carefully for the references to Suvorov – a Russian general, part of the priceless banter between Palmer and the Russian who wants to defect.

They don't make films like this anymore – simply because they don't write books like this anymore. This was Len Deighton and it is first class.

In my second Harry Palmer film of the weekend, "Funeral in Berlin" (1966), Michael Caine, as Cockney thief turned secret agent Palmer, is given the mission of smuggling a Russian defector (Oscar Homolka, playing Colonel Stok) out of East Berlin. Guy Doleman appears again as Harry's obnoxious boss, and once in Berlin, Harry is aided by an old wartime friend, Vulkan (Paul Hubschmid, who you might better know as Paul Christian, star of "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms"). Palmer also gets involved with an Israeli secret agent in this film, played by the beautiful Eva Renzi, who, in real life, was Paul Hubschmid's wife. As might be expected, the smuggling of Col. Stok does not go quite as planned, and once again, plot complications ensue to the point that the viewer can just barely keep up with all the double crosses and secret agendas of all the players. And yet again, the ties to the Bond franchise are there, what with Harry Saltzman's production, Guy "Goldfinger" Hamilton's direction, and Ken Adam's sets. In all, a highly pleasing affair, with fascinating background scenery of the dreary Berlin environs, but only if you are willing to really pay attention and keep up!

"The Ipcress File" introduced us to Harry Palmer, the anti-James Bond. This movie is even better than the first. Both are based on novels by Len Deighton, who rivals John LeCarre as the most sophisticated thoughtful spy novelists. Michael Caine's Palmer has a cockney accent, avoids fights, can't afford the finer things in life, has no fancy cars or technological gimmicks. What he has is the brain to figure who's triple crossing all the double crossers in Cold War Berlin's espionage underground. It helps that all the other characters underestimate him. This movie is sharp, intelligent, and unsentimental. It ranks with the very best spy movies ever made. Outstanding.

Though arguably not as cohesive as The Ipcress File, Funeral in Berlin still stands head and shoulders above the average 60s spy movie. The pacing could be tighter, the adaptation of Deighton's exemplary novel - one of his best - could be a little more fluid but generally the thing works well.

For fans of the novels this is perhaps the most interesting of the three movies. Ipcress is a fascinating spin on the its novel's central theme, Brain is an awful adaptation of a lack-lustre book but Funeral in Berlin sticks to the original story pretty firmly until it turns on you with a very groovy twist indeed.

Taking Harry Palmer to cold-war Berlin, 'Funeral In Berlin (1966)' sees its hero tasked with handling the defection of a Russian general. Of course things don't go exactly to plan. The plot includes all manner of codenames, back-stabbings and stiff upper lips. It gets very complicated very quickly and it's honesty hard to keep track of. More often than not, you're at the mercy of the narrative. That isn't always a bad thing and it does lead to a few surprises, but it also prevents you from being as attached to proceedings as you perhaps could have been. It's a rather cold affair, overall; it isn't emotionally affecting. It is typically an enjoyable experience, though. It's not quite as good as its predecessor, but it's a solid spy movie nevertheless. 6/10