This movie might be a bit dated...but that doesn't change the fact that it is still very relevant today! Monsters are still getting behind the wheel after drinking and still injuring/killing innocent people! When someone drinks and knowingly gets behind the wheel and hurts or kills someone...they should be thrown in prison for life. That would be appropriate since they took the life of someone else! Denzel Washington might not have that big of a part in this film...but he was just starting out. The parts he does have are well-done! Ari Meyers does an excellent job as the grieving little sister. I hope I never have to deal with something so tragic as this family had to endure but they played their parts well. Bravo Denzel and to all the actors/actresses in this film. You did an excellent job!
11 Reviews
Don't Be Upset. Don't Be Duped.
refinedsugar3 June 2023
My family bought me 'License to Kill' many years ago for Christmas. One look at the box cover and I knew it was going to be a title made early in Denzel Washington's career. A common cheapo tactic of movies you find in bargain bins which I don't think my family knew. It's a standard "perils of alcohol" made for TV movie and Denzel plays the small part of the prosecutor in the case.
I think we all know it's a crime. Irresponsible to operate a vehicle while intoxicated, but people still do it regardless. Parents lose a daughter in this tale and there's no grey area. No unavoidable tragedy. The offender is a lush. Drunk behind the wheel in the early afternoon and portrayed as semi-wealthy and a snob.
James Farentino is effective as the father on the verge of obsession seeking justice as is Don Murray good as the drunk who doesn't think he did anything wrong. Denzel is fine, but Donald Moffat (The Thing, Clear & Present Danger) is particularly effective as the defense attorney who serves his client well but the kind you love to hate.
It's not unmanageable to watch, but it strictly goes thru the numbers. If you didn't know what you were getting into before well you do now. Don't tune in for a early role for the future star alone.
I think we all know it's a crime. Irresponsible to operate a vehicle while intoxicated, but people still do it regardless. Parents lose a daughter in this tale and there's no grey area. No unavoidable tragedy. The offender is a lush. Drunk behind the wheel in the early afternoon and portrayed as semi-wealthy and a snob.
James Farentino is effective as the father on the verge of obsession seeking justice as is Don Murray good as the drunk who doesn't think he did anything wrong. Denzel is fine, but Donald Moffat (The Thing, Clear & Present Danger) is particularly effective as the defense attorney who serves his client well but the kind you love to hate.
It's not unmanageable to watch, but it strictly goes thru the numbers. If you didn't know what you were getting into before well you do now. Don't tune in for a early role for the future star alone.
BOOZE IS A PART OF LIFE
nogodnomasters15 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Lynn Peterson (Kristen Vigard) is a grade "A: student and grade "B" actress is killed by a drunk driver while listening to Jim Croce "Time in a Bottle" because God loves irony. The whole film is about the family wanting to make sure the drunk (Don Murray) goes to jail. Denzel Washington plays the prosecutor who is able to introduce surprise evidence without disclosure.
The acting was fairly sad all around in this made for TV movie. No crazy outbursts, no fights, no slasher looking for revenge, no ghost haunting, just families going boo-hoo-hoo. Yawn.
The acting was fairly sad all around in this made for TV movie. No crazy outbursts, no fights, no slasher looking for revenge, no ghost haunting, just families going boo-hoo-hoo. Yawn.
What a stinking ripoff!
lastliberal22 April 2007
I bought this movie with Denzel Washington on the cover and a title of License to Kill. It even says "full screen" and the back said "unrated." Well, it was unrated all right, because it was a TV movie and Denzel Washington had a minor part in it. All I can say that Denzel must have had some time to kill before he started A Soldier's Story and made this in a day. It was certainly a complete ripoff by Echo bridge Home Entertainment to package the trash as it did and take my money. It should be sold at the dollar store for a buck. It was a Lifetime movie, pure and simple, and there is nothing I can say that is worse that that.
These people ripped me off.
These people ripped me off.
A product of its time - but not a bad movie!
kittykatkan11 February 2006
Though Denzel Washington is used to promote this movie, it's not really a Denzel vehicle -- he doesn't show up until halfway through the movie, and during the second half of the movie, his appearances are staccato and brief. In other words, he's not the star.
The main characters are the members of the Peterson family -- father John (Farentino), mother Judith (Fuller), and younger daughter Amy (Meyers) -- each of whom struggles with his or her grief when the elder daughter of the family, Lynne (Vigard), is killed by a drunk driver. The family drifts apart as John obsesses over getting the guilty driver convicted of manslaughter; Judith sinks into helpless depression; and Amy is left lonely and afraid, her world suddenly upside-down.
Denzel comes into the picture as the extremely overworked but nevertheless competent public prosecutor Martin Sawyer, who is assigned the case against the driver charged with Lynne's death.
It's not a spectacular movie -- it has its maudlin moments, its result is predictable, and there are times you'll want to kick some of the characters for their obstinacy -- but as I say, it's a product of its time, and there are worse ways of spending an hour and a half. The message is a little heavy-handed, but it remains a valid one, however dated the movie itself may be (check out Denzel's glasses!).
The main characters are the members of the Peterson family -- father John (Farentino), mother Judith (Fuller), and younger daughter Amy (Meyers) -- each of whom struggles with his or her grief when the elder daughter of the family, Lynne (Vigard), is killed by a drunk driver. The family drifts apart as John obsesses over getting the guilty driver convicted of manslaughter; Judith sinks into helpless depression; and Amy is left lonely and afraid, her world suddenly upside-down.
Denzel comes into the picture as the extremely overworked but nevertheless competent public prosecutor Martin Sawyer, who is assigned the case against the driver charged with Lynne's death.
It's not a spectacular movie -- it has its maudlin moments, its result is predictable, and there are times you'll want to kick some of the characters for their obstinacy -- but as I say, it's a product of its time, and there are worse ways of spending an hour and a half. The message is a little heavy-handed, but it remains a valid one, however dated the movie itself may be (check out Denzel's glasses!).
Sobering film; no pun intended
Zebrafil26 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This film should be remembered for a lot more than Denzels presence. It was made to shock and it does. It makes one consider how easy it is to lose ones perspective on the road. The fact that the drunk driver had no conscious cognition of the level of his own responsibility until it was forced upon him is deep food for thought for everyone. The sad scene of someone asking the mother of the dead girl how she is doing in school is the sort of thing that can happen all to easily in a tragedy. This is the kind of thing one should view soberly and with thought. It needs to run more often for the good of society. Also the performance level is of a very high quality in a difficult and emotional script.
Heavy Handed Morality Tale
Lechuguilla22 December 2008
There's really not a whole lot to say about this low budget made-for-TV drama about two families whose lives intersect as a result of an accident involving a young girl and a drunk driver. The courtroom sequence in the second half contains some tension. And the overall acting is decent.
Maybe in its day the movie had some merit as a propaganda tool. But a generation later, the film's blunt, too-direct theme is highly off-putting. The story is not particularly entertaining. Indeed, it is something of a downer. Characters are all cardboard cutouts, lacking any degree of complexity. The family of the victim is highly respectable and squeaky clean. The head of the other family is an arrogant businessman named Tom Fiske (Don Murray) who is easy to dislike. The film's plot is trite and predictable. Script dialogue contains very little subtext. And the film's low-key piano score reeks of cheap elevator music.
I can think of no reason to recommend "License To Kill". Its thematic message of don't-drink-and-drive has long since been pounded and beaten into Americans, the highly moralistic theme belabored, ordained, and codified in countless other ways. To find films with relevant social themes, the viewer will need to look elsewhere.
Maybe in its day the movie had some merit as a propaganda tool. But a generation later, the film's blunt, too-direct theme is highly off-putting. The story is not particularly entertaining. Indeed, it is something of a downer. Characters are all cardboard cutouts, lacking any degree of complexity. The family of the victim is highly respectable and squeaky clean. The head of the other family is an arrogant businessman named Tom Fiske (Don Murray) who is easy to dislike. The film's plot is trite and predictable. Script dialogue contains very little subtext. And the film's low-key piano score reeks of cheap elevator music.
I can think of no reason to recommend "License To Kill". Its thematic message of don't-drink-and-drive has long since been pounded and beaten into Americans, the highly moralistic theme belabored, ordained, and codified in countless other ways. To find films with relevant social themes, the viewer will need to look elsewhere.
I wanted to see Denzel Washington and was not sorry I rented it.
paparay21 August 2010
I paid a buck to see this film. Yep, Denzel Washington did not have a spectacular part. I will recommend this film for it's great message. Denzel Washington does well in portraying the helplessness that must often be felt by people who are wronged and have to wait for justice to be done. Perhaps they feel justice does not get done. The tragedy and heartache suffered by the offended and by the offending persons in this film is well portrayed. Don't buy it, rent it for $1.04 like I did. (Is that ten lines yet?) Nope, it wouldn't let me go. So I'll repeat some things for emphasis. I paid a buck to see this film. Yep, Denzel Washington did not have a spectacular part. I will recommend this film for it's great message. Denzel Washington does well in portraying the helplessness that must often be felt by people who are wronged and have to wait for justice to be done. Perhaps they feel justice does not get done. The tragedy and heartache suffered by the offended and by the offending persons in this film is well portrayed. Don't buy it, rent it for $1.04 like I did.
Don't buy it on DVD without knowing what it is about
max-5629 March 2008
A box showing current Denzel Washinton with an automatic gun and a synopsis that let's you expect a film like Man on Fire looked promising.
But despite what the cover promises, you end up with a badly dubbed (at least German version) below standard lawyer TV film without any surprises or tension. Denzel Washington appears for just a few scenes, playing a overburdened attorney without the possibility to show his brilliancy as actor and the rest of the cast is acting uninspired either.
Granted, for a 80s TV film, it might not be that bad, and without the feeling of being cheated to buy it, but watching it on TV on a very boring day, the rating would be a 3 out of 10. Given the circumstances, this shameless attempt to get another buck out of a low budget production deserves the worst rating of all.
But despite what the cover promises, you end up with a badly dubbed (at least German version) below standard lawyer TV film without any surprises or tension. Denzel Washington appears for just a few scenes, playing a overburdened attorney without the possibility to show his brilliancy as actor and the rest of the cast is acting uninspired either.
Granted, for a 80s TV film, it might not be that bad, and without the feeling of being cheated to buy it, but watching it on TV on a very boring day, the rating would be a 3 out of 10. Given the circumstances, this shameless attempt to get another buck out of a low budget production deserves the worst rating of all.
A timeless message to everyone on consequences of our actions.
rdetjen11 March 2006
I picked this movie up because it looked pretty good and Denzel Washington was in it. I was pleasantly surprised with it, though when I realized how old it was, I didn't think I would enjoy it. It turned out that they used Denzel Washington as if he were a main character, but he was barely in it. However, it caught your attention in the horribleness of driving drunk. It should be shown to all kids getting ready to get their licenses and what can happen if you do drive while under the influence. A little depressing, the death of their daughter is very gripping and made me think of my own kids and the potential dangers, but definitely worth watching.
An excellent movie showing the SICKNESS of DUI!
RipRap13 January 2004
DUI, Driving Under the Influence and killing someone is MURDER!!! Premeditated MURDER! This film portrays the choices we make when we make the decision to drink and drive; and it does it well. ANYONE that has EVER had a drink, and then driven a motor vehicle should watch this film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
