Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Lollivan 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.

MartinHafer I read through the other reviews and was shocked that one of the reviewers compared this film favorably to a Hitchcock film and another gave it a 9. While I could see some parallels to "The 39 Steps", apart from that there isn't anything Hitchcockian about it...it's just a badly written espionage film.Nice-guy Sterling Hayden is traveling cross-country when his car falls apart. He is soon met by a lady (a poorly cast Ruth Roman) who asks if he'll accompany her to Santa Fe--helping her drive in order to get there faster. On the way, and this is goofy, cops try to take Roman into custody. So what would you do in this situation? Yep, slug the cops and run like mad!! Hayden doesn't even know this lady, yet he does this?! While these cops did act a big like jerks, why didn't they then go directly to the nearest police station AFTER they crossed the state line only minutes later?! This is especially puzzling when she tells Sterling about her past and how she might be mixed up in some sort of espionage. Any SANE person would immediately go to the police, FBI or CIA--not keep pressing on to Santa Fe! This sort of brainless writing continues throughout the film (such as Hayden then marrying this lady he barely knows) and it irritated the life out of me that the film was so poorly written. Frankly, both Roman and Hayden deserved better material than this and I was annoyed that I wasted my time on this silly film. With a little re-write, it would have been a dandy film. As it was, it's a boring and silly mess. Comparing this to Hitchcock is like comparing a Cracker Jack prize to the Hope Diamond!!The only positive thing this confusing film has going for it is seeing Werner Klemperer playing an evil guy--that was a bit cool.

Irie212 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.

bexa 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.

dbdumonteil Do you remember "the thirty-nine steps"?Do you remember Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll chained together by handcuffs ?Sterling Hayden and Ruth Roman (who was in Hitchcock's "strangers on a train") have the same misadventure;besides,the doctor and the nurse who "take care" of Mrs Nicholson recall Claude Rains and his mother poisoning Ingrid Bergman in "notorious".It goes without saying that "5 paces to danger" is Hitchcockesque to the core.The plot is bizarre but the two leads make a good pairing and the film ,which begins as a road movie ,then features an almost irrelevant flashback in Germany to continue as a spy thriller ,is rather entertaining.Best scene comes at the end when they visit the so called Kessel in the base: we feel something odd in the air and the bag is a good trick.