The 39 Steps

Having recently re-read John Buchan's (short) novel "The 39 Steps" and already owning the 1935 and 1959 videos, a reappraisal seemed appropriate. While the '59 version is a delightful movie, it is a long way removed from the novel. On screen, Kenneth More is more Kenneth More than Richard Hannay. There are one or two "I don't think so" scenes such as Perce's (Sid James) attitude to a wanted killer. But we'll let that pass. You have to look at the production in its own right, because as a movie version of the book, it just doesn't make it. The Hitchcock version was much better in that respect. However, the Kenneth More film is utterly enjoyable as a bit of light drama. Certainly the underlying plot is worthy and overall, I'd give it 7 out of 10.

The main thing that springs to mind when watching this 1959 film, is the 1935 Alfred Hitchcock directed version. It puts this film at a disadvantage which I think is unfair.

The 1959 version is in my opinion a highly watchable, colourful! Adventure featuring several facets of interest which I will briefly touch on:

1) The cinematography is of course colour and the location photography in locales such as the Scottish countryside is a delight.

2) The performance of Kenneth More as the character 'Richard Hannay' is unashamably English. More was a popular British actor of the period and I think he does well here.

3) The production if of course in an era long before CGI (thankfully!) and relied on techniques such as rear screen projection especially of scenes on the Firth Railway Bridge. They are actually quite good for the time.

Look out for some cameos by British stars of the time. I'm thinking of the late Sidney James.

All in all a decent watch from the period.

I have read all sorts of bad things about this film, not necessarily on IMDB, but in film guides etc. I have known the film for years, had it previously on VHS then lost it and just found it on DVD issued in England presumable in August. I do enjoy watching this film, the picture quality is excellent ( Eastmancolor ), lovely views of London and Scotland in the 1950's, plenty of humour, nice actors and a good plot which really keeps you guessing what it's all about for about 50 minutes. I have seen the original version by Hitchcock, its the same story but in black and white with awful picture and sound quality ( I have most of Hitchcock's films on DVD ) and there's no advantage to the Hitchcock film over this one - on the contrary this one is better. In addition to that we have some humorous touches absent from the original one. So I for one would thoroughly recommend this one - perhaps I am biased, for I consider the 50's as the "golden era". There was also a version made in 1978 which I will get down to viewing shortly.

An enjoyable adventure, notable for good location shots of London, not the obvious tourist's traps, and the highlands of Scotland. Having identifiable locations increases the local tourist trade, many people want to visit the"scene of the crime".

Does it matter that the film didn't follow the book too carefully. Was it entertainment in its own right, or do we want to follow the scenes and dialogue, like some old theatre and concert goers with their carefully annotated "libretti". No,the movie industry stands on its own feet, and of course it uses literature. Didn't the original author not take classical themes, innocent man accused of criminal activity, trustworthy persons in power turn out to be the baddies, boy meets girl, loses girl, refinds girl. There really cannot be total originallity in any modern work of creativity, all is based on what has gone before.

Thirty nine steps, a ripping good yarn, to be enjoyed in the spirit in which it was offered.

First things first, Hitchcock's 'The 39 Steps' is and always will be a classic of the British cinema and Ralph Thomas's remake (it's unashamedly a remake, rather than an adaptation of the novel) fails to equal it. However, once you get past that fact, on its own terms this is rather an enjoyable little movie.

Kenneth More is one of my favourite performers, perhaps not the greatest actor in the world, but one who has a charismatic personality. If he doesn't quite equal Robert Donat's original 'Richard Hannay', he comes close and invests the role with genuine warmth. Taina Elg's foreign heroine however, though very attractive is no Madeleine Carroll and is perhaps the movie's weakest link.

The stars are backed up by a splendid cast of familiar British character actors, ranging from Sid James's cameo as a truck driver, to Brenda De Banzie's turn as a friendly, man-hungry roadside café owner.

Another plus is the glorious Scottish locations (genuine this time, as opposed to the original's studio mock-ups), filmed in luscious 'Eastmancolor'.

All in all, while Ralph Thomas is no Alfred Hitchcock (but then, there's only one Hitch), the remake is ideal entertainment, perfect viewing for a dark winter's night, curled up in your armchair with hot coffee and toast by your side.