the audience applauded

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

MASTER PLAN: assassinate a scientist who has a new formula. This isn't really a parody of the James Bond secret agent thriller, more like a copy of the already slightly absurd sub-genre. It's more direct in this respect than the other imitators of this decade because this depicts the same covert agency of the Bond universe, not the new worlds of, say, 'Flint' or Matt Helm. The double-0 agent here (Adams) isn't some fumble-witted fool like, for example, the "The Liquidator," who hates to kill anyone; no, this Vine character really is the 2nd best agent, able to kill bad guys left & right quite effectively. The tone and plot are not ridiculous, containing only some subtle satirical jabs here & there - the most outrageous is probably in the teaser, depicting a strange assassination. Then Sammy Davis Jr. sings the somewhat over-the-top title song ("The 2nd Best Secret Agent..."). There's an amusing copycat scene of Bond's first meeting with M from "Dr.No," Vine has a similarly fluid way to Bond with the ladies in bed, there's a sly reference to "Goldfinger" and he uses a silencer gun with an extra-long barrel, which I'm sure sent a signal to some viewers on the meaning. But, other than that, the action is pretty straightforward, with the agent's main mission protecting a scientist who has invented a new gravity formula (or anti-gravity; depends on how you look at it). See also "The Glass Bottom Boat" for another sample of the preoccupation with gravity formulas around this time. The writers included some dialog that even explores and attempts to explain such a secret agent's approach to life and his job, a commentary on the whole Bond outlook, which may or may not ring true. This was always left to the imagination in the Bond films, not spoken outloud.There's a repetitive quality to the story, which may strike some as a weakness. There are several attempts by assassins on the life of the scientist; these bits usually take place on a road somewhere - the heroes are tricked into stopping the car and then Vine has to demonstrate why he's still alive and almost the best in the business. There's even a weak instance of the assassins delaying their termination of Vine and the scientist for no reason, including even the lame 'last cigarette gambit' by Vine, but most of the scenes do contain elements of tension and excitement. There's even some suspense regarding the motivations and true goals of the scientist. Probably due to a small budget, the film steers away from any spectacular set-pieces of the later Bond films of "Goldfinger" and after, but this just means it resembles the basic espionage plot lines of "Dr.No" and "From Russia With Love." Don't expect huge explosions or sets, just some standard gun-play and tepid auto chases. The writers also threw in a doppelganger subplot towards the end, which builds on the 'false death' scenarios of a couple of Bonders. There are no really memorable villains, with mostly some Cold War Soviet intrigue behind-the-scenes, including actor Bull from "Dr.Strangelove" in a similar role. As Vine, Adams is adequate; he certainly lacks the charisma and presence of Connery, and he's almost too humorless in the role. It's probably better that he didn't stray into tongue-in-cheek silliness, but his lack of expression throughout was a bit too stiff and a little on the dull side. He would return once more in "Where The Bullets Fly." Hero:6 Villains:6 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:6 Gadgets:4 Auto:5 Locations:5 Pace:6 overall:6

***spoiler*** I saw this picture one bored night on TV "midnight theater"and I found a very funny scene. Towards the climax where the hero and the vilain shoot each other and that is supposed to be suspenceful,they sneak along two sides of a building to one corner to meet,and they think of the same thing and took off their shoes to mute the sounds of footsteps.Then,I found the hitman,who is really a shabby guy and looks incompetent,wearing a sock with a hole at its tip and his foot thumb coming thru it! I burst into laughter and the suspence failed. Over all I had a fun time.3 out of 5.

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!