Five Steps to Danger (1957)

People are voting emotionally.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

When his car breaks down during a trip from Los Angeles to Texas, John Emmett (Sterling Hayden) meets another motorist, Ann Nicholson (Ruth Roman), who offers him a lift. He learns that she is running away from her physician, Dr. Simmons (Werner Klemperer), and the police, who want to question her about a murdered Central Intelligence Agent in Los Angeles.Werner Klemperer? The CIA? Murder? Oh yes. While this is not one of those big budget thrillers or spy stories, it is not a bad one. You like independent film, do you not? Well, this is what it looked like in the 1950s, when you worked outside the studio system.

For the first twenty minutes or so of watching this film, I was quite engrossed in the story - both leads, Ruth Roman and Sterling Hayden, giving good performances throughout.And then, gradually, as if someone else had taken over the script, the story becomes silly, and it begins when these two cops pull them over - these officers are so incompetent it's comical. Perhaps the director wanted to give us some light relief!These two bastions of law and order, follow standard police procedure, leaving their keys in the ignition! then cop "A" manages, somehow, to get thrown off the roadside into a ditch by Ruth Roman! so what does cop "B" do faced with an assault on a fellow officer? get out his gun? stay a safe distance from the assailants? radio for assistance? No, he rushes at Ruth Roman, grapples with her - positioning himself helpfully at the edge of the ditch, his partner has just fallen into, so that Sterling can shove him in also. Now despite the silliness of this scene I was, foolishly, still prepared to fully enjoy the rest of the film - "After all" I told myself "lots of very good, even great films, cut corners to keep the story moving".From this scene onwards the storyline turned into "The Thirty-nine Steps" - Ruth and Sterling handcuffed together, vital secret to be delivered, East German agents, and respectable, upright citizens who are really spies. I didn't mind this so much, but when both the CIA and the FBI got involved, why on earth didn't they get take possession of said, secret document? I know they wanted to "out" the spies, but couldn't they have done this afterwards. Perhaps some other IMDb reviewer has the answer, but it's beyond me. There were many other flaws in this film - the two leads getting married after two days - as other reviewers here, have mentioned, but I won't list them all. This had potential to be a good film, but it just turns into a complicated mess. I am giving it a generous 5 out of ten, mostly for Ruth Roman who, despite a good performance, can't save this film.

Another IMDb reviewer, dbdumonteil, made the key observation that this movie was reminiscent of Hitchcock-- about an ordinary man caught up in extraordinary circumstances. It also has handcuffed characters ("39 Steps"), an evil doctor ("Spellbound"), and German scientists ("Notorious"). But this is a far cry from Hitchcock. In Henry S. Kesler's hands, I'm not even sure what the eponymous five steps to danger were.The idea isn't bad. The first scene is intriguing. The road scenes capture the American Southwest in the mid-1950s. And the performances are adequate, except for the many lawmen who are so rigid and expressionless, you'd think they'd be convincing, but no.But its minor attributes are overwhelmed by major problems: there is no memorable dialog; the plot is more convoluted than complex; the editing is atrocious (the chase scene with the gunsel is particularly inept); and the big final scene at the weapons lab is too little, too late.Kesler made three movies before he migrated to TV, where he directed only a few episodes of each of a handful of 1950s series, the most famous of which is "Highway Patrol." If you've seen "Highway Patrol," then you know that Kesler is strictly from the point-and-shoot school of film-making. There isn't an ounce of creativity in "Five Steps"-- nothing in the editing or camera-work that builds tension or rhythm, let alone pace.It deserves less than a 5 rating, but I've always admired the under-rated Ruth Roman; and it was fun to see Werner Klemperer, Jeanne Cooper ("Young and Restless"), and Ken Curtis ("Gunsmoke") in early roles; but in the final analysis, I can't give any Sterling Hayden picture less than a 5.

This excerpt from one of the comments cracked me up: "Sterling Hayden plays John and Ruth Roman is Ann. While they were adequate, I couldn't help but wonder what the movie would have been like with Gary Cooper and Suzanne Pleshette, as the leads very much resembled these two known actors." They would have only been 40 years apart in age and Ruth Roman and Sterling Hayden were certainly better known when this movie was made than Suzanne Pleshette!!! Sterling Hayden is his gallant best here and Ruth Roman is wonderful as the damsel in distress. And for us retro clothes horses, wears a great wardrobe!Werner Klemperer (Colonel Klink from "Hogan's Heroes") takes us dangerously close the the edge of camp, but again, this is before that role...but it does lend a sense of unintentional hilarity to those of us who remember that TV show.