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.

utgard14 Nicely paced WW2 spy thriller with George Raft playing an American agent trying to stop a German plan to turn Turkey against Russia. It's an ill-fitting role for Raft but I can't say he was terrible. I always liked him, even if he could be a pretty wooden actor sometimes. This is the kind of role I could easily see Bogart playing, which is ironic considering George Raft notoriously turned down some of the parts that made Bogart's career, such as Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. This movie also marked the end of Raft's contract with Warner Bros, which effectively meant the beginning of the end of his days as an A-lister.The fairly short runtime helps, as does the great supporting cast. Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet are always worth watching. Lovely Brenda Marshall and Ona Massen are good, too. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I thought this was a very enjoyable movie of its type. I'm sure if you dislike Raft you will find it tougher going than I did. If you're a fan of the cast or WW2 movies in general, I definitely recommend you try this one out.

LeonLouisRicci Completely Forgettable, if not for all the "Names" attached. The "A" list ranges from the Writers (credited or otherwise, the Director, and the Stars (top and under-billed). It culminates in one of the most stilted, interwoven, and flat looking Movies to come out of the "War Years" Propaganda assembly line.While all the parts are here to manufacture at least an Entertaining Flag Waiver, it is surprisingly a Lemon. There is hardly a Swastika in sight (maybe a Flag or two here and there) and the Nazis are mostly Semi-Shady Characters that are hardly threatening. Even the Cultured Fat Man is more amusing than intimidating.Not a Dud, but everyone on screen seems uninspired, considering the fate of the Free World is at hand, and it looks too Studio Bound (except for one accelerating car chase) to have an International feel. This one is for checklist completest only.

Karl Ericsson The Nazis have forged some plans that are supposed to show that Russia wants to invade Turkey. Those plans are chased the whole movie through. Why these plans are so special and cannot be forged all over again or duplicated or whatever - that is never explained and the Nazis that did the plans in the first place are just as much in with the chase as everybody else! And then the Nazis have friendly newspapers in Turkey who are in on the deal with the faked plans and who could just as easily have received the plans by mail from Germany - dozens of them, in case one or two of them got lost in the mail but that would have been to easy, I guess.Well, maybe there were explanations for all this shenanigans in the book from which the story was taken but there sure wasn't any explanations in the picture and so I stopped being baffled at the stupidity of the story and instead watched whatever I could still cherish from this production and found some items. Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstedt deliver as good as ever. Raft is no Bogey but he isn't James Garner either and so he is quite bearable. The photography, lightning etc couldn't be much better and so it struck me.Had I seen this film on a matinée in my childhood days, I would probably have enjoyed it, since I would not have understood the plot but could still appreciate the action and the atmosphere. Maybe that's the way that most people see films? Sure enough, they seem to learn very little from films like The Bicycle Thief or One Flew Over the Cucko's Nest or The Third Man or Citizen Kane and, for sure, they seem unable to distinguish between bogus Abbas Kiarostami and Vittorio de Sica, for instance. That's why we have so many bulls-t artists in the film industry! As long as the production values that meet the eye are OK, nobody seems to bother about what reaches the ears.Still, personally, I don't seem able to get too much from Lorre and Greenstedt, so, in spite of being upset about the ridiculous story, I still enjoyed myself seeing this film.