SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

alexanderdavies-99382 "Background to Danger" is a case of everyone involved just going through the motions. Nothing about this film is distinguished and it's a relief that it's only on for 80 minutes. George Raft should have chosen better films than this routine fare. The above film was his fifth and final one before he and "Warner Bros" parted company for good. Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre are both fine actors who gave solid support but even they can't save this nonsense. Brenda Marshall isn't much of an actress. She may have had a good screen presence but Bette Davis or Olivia De Havilland she isn't. The worn plot follows an American travelling salesman (Raft) who just happens to get involved with some espionage conspiracy and is recruited by the American embassy in a part of North Africa to discover what is going on. The script is very dull and holds no surprises whatever. At least there is some action but that can only compensate for so much of the film's drawbacks. A pity that George Raft left the studio on such a sour note.

robert-temple-1 This film, expertly directed by Raoul Walsh, is based on a novel by Eric Ambler and William Faulkner worked on the screenplay. So that's a good start. The film is topical again because it deals with the politics and security of Turkey, and is set in Ankara. This is a rousing and powerful wartime espionage thriller. It is not like a modern thriller at all, but is of the traditionalist mode. It does however have one modern feature: an extensive car chase. But the modern wham bam style of one explosion after another and of a new shock or thrill happening every ten seconds is entirely absent. I must confess that I prefer these slightly calmer and less insane thrillers, where some character development can take place. In this film, the incomparable Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre give some of their finest screen performances. The script by W. R. Burnett was worked on enough to allow them scope to emerge from flat cardboard and become popup. That is very satisfying to those of us who think they were both wonderful and can never see enough of them. I have never been an admirer of George Raft, who gives me the creeps. But I have to admit that in this film he does a very good job and I cannot find any cause to complain or indulge my prejudices, but have to say well done George. He always had a good ability to underplay and avoid histrionics. However, the narrowing of his eyes always reminds me of a python. The two gals are Osa Massen, who does an excellent job early in the story of being furtive and fearful and mysterious, before she gets killed, and Brenda Marshall, who is also excellent and lively. So this film really works and is definitely one of the best wartime efforts to educate the American public about the location and existence of foreign lands of which they knew nothing, and of their importance within the context of the world war which was raging at the time. If only the future of Turkey had been satisfactorily resolved, but that has still not happened, as we all know. This film attempts to emulate the atmosphere of the previous year's hit, CASABLANCA, but George Raft is far too cold a hero to act as the catalyst for any love chemistry, unless with a fellow reptile. Even when he smiles, you wonder what insect he is going to eat. However, we do not really need Ingrid Bergman and Bogart and Paul Henreid in everything. After all, CASABLANCA was not really a thriller, it was a tragic love story and romance in which two people sacrifice their own happiness for the greater good, which is the true secret of its success. All the wartime intrigue of CASABLANCA was just a background, in the same way that the American Civil War was just a background to the central love story in GONE WITH THE WIND. This film makes forays in the direction of romance, but its true purpose is to be an espionage thriller, and in that it succeeds admirably.

DKosty123 This film shares several things with Casablanca. It has several members from that cast with some changes. It deals with Nazi's & intrigue though this time in Angora, Turkey instead of Morroco. Peter Lorre manages to get shot in both movies. Backgound To Danger is actually based upon a novel by the same name. Both movies came off Warner Brothers war propaganda assembly line. The differences are striking though. Even though this one has a higher power Director, Raoul Walsh, & a higher power writer, William Faulkner, involved in the film, it just simply is not as good. George Raft just isn't Bogart and Ingrid Bergman is no where to be found. Interesting it is the very next film after Casablanca for Greenstreet. This movie is entertaining, & it has a good cast. For some reason the script is where this falls short. Casablanca, just seems to be better on all counts.

u4775 I liked this film although there were certainly many better for the time. It is the usual war time movie without being too much like the rest.How can you go wrong watching Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre together? Greenstreet is simply magnetic, and I was stunned to find out he debuted in films with Casablanca only a year before.I kept thinking during the movie how much better it would have been with someone else besides Raft in the title role, he is pretty wooden. I am not sure where his performance ranks with his other roles. I hope they were better but doubt that they were. I don't watch many of them normally.Brenda Marshall provides window dressing mostly and the ending smacks of a cheap knockoff attempt, but the rest wasn't too bad.