Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

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.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

Poorly directed, poorly staged, and veers into propagandist self-parody, it nevertheless works because of the two leads. Sterling Hayden is fantastic as the everyman drifter, and manages to make the occasionally ham-handed script sound authentic. This is a kind of American-character type study that sets the American everyman as more of a puzzle-solver than an ass-kicker, though both are in evidence. Ruth Roman is somewhat off-putting and passionless, but it's the kind of performance that keeps you guessing and makes you wonder about her. Whether or not that was intentional is debatable. Their relationship is also off-putting, but has a strange resonance, if only because of Hayden's droopy-lipped deadpan.The somewhat stiff supporting cast, except maybe for Cooper, gives the impression that this is army-issue "What To Do" type stuff for a Cold War audience. And I'm sure there was some of that kind of thinking behind it. The all-seeing Deus-Ex-Machina of the espionage machine is very heavy.I wonder about people who think that the absence of suspense in a movie like this is a weakness. I suppose if you were expecting thrilling suspense or some kind of a mindless noir-caper style of movie you would be sorely disappointed. The at-times blocky and then wildly uncontrolled staging make it very difficult to sustain a consistent tone, and the director doesn't appear to want to pay attention to any kind of thematic imagery. Perhaps counter-intuitively, this makes the threat posed by the story seem more artlessly plausible, and the tension created revolves around psychological issues rather than mortal ones. If any attention had been paid to the implications of this idea, it might be a better movie. As it is, it's mostly entertaining and highly watchable.

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.

Contains Spoilers ***** 5 Steps to Danger opens with John (Sterling Hayden) being towed into a repair shop, where he meets Ann (Ruth Roman). They quickly decide to ride together to Santa Fe, but the trip gets more and more odd when they meet up with some of Ann's old friends along the along the way. After a few of these strange meetings, John realizes he's caught up in something bigger and more dangerous than he planned... Keep an eye out for Werner Klemperer -- here, he's Doctor Simmons, but we all know him from Hogans Heroes! The story moves along all right, lots of talking, and we're never really sure who is on the level and who is not. Hayden made tons of films in the 1950s, but this wasn't really one of the better ones. His acting was just fine, but the script is a little weak. Would two people who had just met about two days before get married, when one of them may or may not be in their right mind, caught up in some cold war, spy mystery, and on the run, not knowing where they are heading ?? I don't think so....(I know, it was part of their strategy to thwart her doctor.) Hayden has an interesting biography; acc to IMDb, he had been a spy himself, and actually had contact with communists in Yugoslavia, (which he admitted during the HUAC talks) so he himself had experience with the cold war. Some neat outdoor photography as they drive through the deserts and past the Joshua Trees and cactus. Screenplay, production, and direction by Henry Kesler, who had mostly done TV, and this is one of the few films he did. Original story written by Don Hamilton, who knew a thing or two about spies ... he had written the 26 Matt Helm novels, which were later made into TV movies and series. Hamilton even lived in Santa Fe for quite a while, which is where this film is set.