utgard14 Exciting espionage picture from Warner Bros. that holds the distinction of being the first explicitly anti-Nazi movie made in America. Star Edward G. Robinson doesn't appear until nearly midway through the film. The first half of the movie is about the various characters involved in a Nazi spy ring. Robinson plays an FBI agent who catches one German-American (Frances Lederer) acting as a spy and uses him to try and nab bigger Nazi fish.Fascinating from a historical perspective but also gripping entertainment. It was based on a real case, which might explain why it has this realistic feel to it that you don't often see in pictures of the time. For example they don't even catch all the bad guys in the end. I'm surprised the Code allowed that as it usually called for all evil-doers to be punished. The newsreel-style narration is also a nice touch. The cast is good with (mostly) solid performances from everyone. Frances Lederer is hammy but he grows on you after awhile. Paul Lukas and George Sanders play Nazis. Sanders is good and Lukas is fantastic in the film's meatiest role. Robinson is also great in an understated performance. Given that this is WB we're dealing with, there's of course a wonderful supporting cast featuring the likes of Joe Sawyer, Dorothy Tree, and many German actors (some of whom used fake names to protect their families back in Germany)."You guys are worse than gangsters" shouts one man when he's thrown out of a German American Bund meeting for expressing a dissenting opinion. There's some humor in that, I suppose, since WB was the pioneer of the gangster movie. But they would also make some of the best ant-Nazi war films during WW2. In many ways, this could be seen as their first step in that direction.

SimonJack "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" is an excellent film about real events. It's based on a true story and uncovered facts at a time when the whole world was on the verge of war. As such, it's also an outstanding piece of propaganda – indeed, a classic example of the beneficial use of propaganda. More on that later.Some of the reviews I've read give the impression that propaganda is all bad. Some imply that it's false or deceptive. Some don't like the fact that propaganda is or can be manipulative. But there are differences between propaganda and how it's used, and between it and outright lies and deception. World War II was a time rife with propaganda and with outright lies and deception. But, before looking at how it applies to this film, it would help to have a better overall understanding of propaganda.Propaganda is everywhere around us. It's in the ads we watch, listen to and read in the media. It's in the news media itself. It's in our history books and school courses at all levels. It's in the government programs created by Congress. It's in the political rhetoric of our elected officials. Indeed, it's a proof of freedom of speech and of the press. The propaganda this refers to is the category of facts, ideas, and information that is used widely to explain, promote or encourage support for programs, positions, efforts, projects and products. In this vein, propaganda helps inform the public about something. It may help a person make up his or her mind to support or oppose a policy or proposal. It may help a shopper decide which products or brands to buy. It helps people understand how a government program works. That's what most propaganda is and does. But, there is another aspect of some propaganda, and that has to do with spreading rumor or making allegations about some one or thing. This is a malicious use of propaganda, and it fits in the realm of slander. It's used to attack, belittle or discredit some one or something in the eyes of the public. It's always negative. Curiously, no definition of propaganda states that it is ever outright deception and lies. So, there is a clear distinction between propaganda, which is not wrong or bad in itself, and lies or deception which are wrong.Now, back to this film. It's based on a true story and events. It covers a great deal of information about the German-American Bund that many – indeed, most Americans then probably did not know. It exposed the real malicious and oppressive designs and intentions of the Nazis. This was at a time when many Americans were pacifists and didn't want to see a repeat of WWI. And, this film showed very well the deliberate Nazi plan to use the natural, healthy pacifism, as a means to keep America divided and out of the war. For the first time, many Americans found out what the Nazi party was really up to, and how it was a threat to our own country. "Confessions" shows that the Nazis used outright lies and deception to cover up the truth of their operations. That was not propaganda, but misinformation. Toward the end, we saw that they planned to use rumor, allegation and slander in propaganda. This movie doesn't include several of the sabotages that Nazi agents carried out in some eastern U.S. cities. And we learn in the film that before that time, the U.S. did not have a counter-intelligence agency to deal with such insurgency.Who could argue that the conclusions of the film, and the resulting security measures and efforts were not right? The government, and all Americans, learned about the dangers of "loose lips" – that can sink ships. So, as a propaganda piece, this film alerted the public to be cautious and wary. "Confessions" is indeed an historical film. It was the first real intelligent, fact-based movie that warned about the designs of the Nazis. And its value and importance became clear right away when organized Nazi efforts tried to stop the film's release with demonstrations in some eastern cities.

Michael_Elliott Confessions of a Nazi Spy (1939) *** (out of 4) Better than expected propaganda film from Warner is probably more historically interesting than entertaining but there's still enough good stuff here to make it stand up well in today's times. The film centers on an FBI agent (Edward G. Robinson) who is trying to track down and break a Nazi ring working inside the United States. Watching this film today the subject matter is rather heavily handled and preachy. I'd go even further to say that the director and screenwriter are constantly beating their subjected over the head of the viewer but one has to remember that the Nazi movements in America were pretty much kept quiet back in the day and this film bravely threw them under the bus a few times. One has to applaud the film for trying what it did in 1939 and I'm sure the movie opened the eyes of many people (even though I've heard it wasn't a hit for the studio). The story told here is a pretty good one that will certainly grab your attention and keep you going throughout the film. The documentary-style telling doesn't work overly well but that doesn't matter too much. Robinson turns in a good, quiet performance as the main FBI guy. He doesn't shout or get too worked up, which is something I haven't seen from him in his earlier films. I really enjoyed how Robinson played the character and it really paid off in the end. Francis Lederer, George Sanders, Paul Lukas, Henry O'Neill and Joe Sawyer add nice supporting performances.

Neil Doyle This is definitely a better than average espionage yarn produced by Warner Bros. a couple of years before our entry into WWII. FRANCIS LEDERER has a key role as a homegrown Nazi spy without much experience but learning the ropes from the more experienced GEORGE SANDERS and PAUL LUKAS.Anatole Litvak's direction is swift and the story told in a semi-documentary style that would flourish more often in the '40s over at Fox where films like THE HOUSE ON 92nd STREET and 13 RUE MADELINE would exploit the subject of espionage.EDWARD G. ROBINSON has the role of a good guy for a change, an FBI man who has to track down the Nazi spies before valuable information is leaked.Maintains interest throughout, despite the late appearance in the film of Robinson's character.One of FRANCIS LEDERER's best roles during the '30s, it's a film well worth watching despite the overtones of propaganda.