Save your money for something good and enjoyable

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

good back-story, and good acting

Best movie ever!

This movie essentially begins with an agent for the British Secret Service named "Charles Vine" (Tom Adams) being assigned to guard a Swedish nuclear physicist by the name of "Professor Henrik Jacobsen" (Karel Stepanek) who has developed a new technology that has the potential to disable incoming nuclear missiles. That being the case, although he plans to sell this technology to the British government, the Soviet Union has other plans and are willing to do everything at their disposal to either capture or kill the professor first. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film had the potential of being a really good spy movie except that the decision was made to turn it into a spoof of the "James Bond" franchise rather than a more serious and solid picture in its own right. In that respect it resembled the "Matt Helm" (starring Dean Martin) or the "Flint" (James Coburn) films than the actual James Bond movies. And like the other two spoofs this particular film wasn't too bad. But again, with a little bit of thought or effort it could have been much better. In any case, I have rated it accordingly. Average.

Wielding a heavy broomhandle Mauser, double 00 agent Tom Adams shows how to shoot down a helicopter by concentrating on its tail blades. Predicting an ambush, he sneaks to the rear of his enemies and shoots them summarily in the back of their heads without quarter or qualm. He shoots and kills a dozen or so people in this movie, some from a moving car in busy London traffic, with the nonchalance of Al Capp's Detective 'Fearless' Fosdick.The action scenes are well executed and Tom Adams is better built than Sean Connery and certainly lacks the jocular effeteness of Roger Moore. He sort of looks like those goony secret service men who guard the President of the United States. In short, he looks like the real thing.I understand from an IMDb correspondent that there was one sequel to this film. It turns out there are two but their reviews are not promising.This was shown in the Philippines under the title Licensed to Kill.

Any actor who carries....and can PROPERLY LOAD ...a Mauser Broomhandle has GOTTA worth an hour or two of my time. And Tom Adams as Charles Vine can sure do THAT. He's suave, sophisticated, very-British, and carries an odd-ball handgun. Wow!I first saw this movie, via Turner's Chanel 17, when I was in college. It seemed to me to be head and shoulders above the average James Bond-wannabies. It stuck with me well enough I watched the second film, called WHERE THE BULLETS FLY, when it was offered.My only regret is, since TIME-WARNER took over Turner Television, many of these 'small' films are lost...never re-shown....by these out-of-touch cost-accountants that run TW.Take my advice...if offered a chance to see LICENSED TO KILL or WHERE THE BULLETS FLY, give it a chance. It MIGHT just grow on you.

I saw this film when I was fourteen and now I'm 48. In the meantime, I've seen thousands of films but never again this film. Could I be mistaken in my memory of it, I asked myself. Then I got hold of Lindsay Shonteff's 'Big Zapper' and found a marvelous satire about most everything but especially about sex and violence, which is ridiculed most thoroughly in that film. I now believe my memory and this film is the one I most desire to see of all films lost to me. First of all, another reviewer wrote about 'black and white - photo'. This film was shot in wonderful color, especially vivid to me. There were the most endearing autumn colors. I fear there are some really gruesome copies out there, which do not do justice to this film. Now for the film. My impression of Tom Adams was then, that he made any other agent-actor, including Sean Connery and James Coburn (whom I both like), look like choir-boys in comparison. This man was no bull-s**t. Strapped on his back was a gun. He never drew it from where it was. He let it stay there and when meeting up with bad guys, he shot from the back, each time ruining an overcoat. He also had a small gun of one shot, which he could hide behind a matchbox if necessary and when offered a last smoke before dying, he reversed the cards. The gun on the back was however much more fun. In the end of the film, he is chased by 'Sadistikoff' (yes, a pun) through some alleys in the city, early in the morning (nobody else is around). Since everything is so quiet, he notices that his shoes are far too noisy. He takes them off and continues in his socks. Sadistikoff notices the same thing and takes his shoes off - you can see, that there are holes in his worn-out socks! Poor Russia. This silent scene all ends when Adams lets the lid of a garbage-can smash down and hides opposite it in a doorway or something of the kind. Sadistikoff comes in and empties his gun on the garbage-can. Adams steps out and Sadistikoff is history. Just to see Adams in this role again - what a treat! Will I ever again? I saw Adams in some spy-flick with Raquel Welch, in which he played a heavy. I was not mistaken. This guy really had charisma. Why was he stopped, I wonder? Refused to play ball? I don't know. Or was it Lindsay Shonteff, the director, who made Adams look so good and who is equally neglected? Quentin Tarantino hasn't seen this one, nor seems anyone else of those who claim to dig up lost diamonds. Dig this one up, if you can!Well, I got a German copy of the film on VHS and must admit that time has not been too kind to it. The humor does however still remain and the film impresses now for the fact that it was obviously done on a shoestring budget. It is also obvious, when seeing this film again, how little special effects mean in order to maintain your interest in a film. Had they blown up a real helicopter in the end of the film instead of no helicopter at all, which was the case obviously, it would not have made the film better or worse. In fact, action is highly overpraised. It is for idiots. A thinking man or woman look for other things in a movie, things that cost very little destruction and therefore little money. Such people look for a good plot that makes you feel more deeply or a dialogue that makes you think more deeply. The money then goes to the writer, the composer of music and the director who manages not to destroy a good plot and beautiful music and last but not least actors that are interesting people. This film had a decent plot and dialogue, a good craftsman of a director that could work with little money, very good actors and lousy music. Had Ennio Morricone done the score, it would have been a classic!