Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

bkoganbing For whatever reason when J. Arthur Rank decided to remake Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece The 39 Steps he opted for a much lighter approach. When Robert Donat essayed Richard Hannay in the original you were watching a most desperate man thrown together with Madeline Carroll running from the cops.Kenneth More apparently decided he was Cary Grant and played it the way Grant did his last Hitchcock film North By Northwest. But what worked for Cary Grant did not work for Kenneth More. And Taina Elg was no Madeline Carroll, few women have ever been that beautiful.Best in this rather tepid remake is Brenda Da Banzie as a most horny women who keeps dropping hints at More who seems completely oblivious.This version of The 39 Steps isn't a patch on what Hitchcock did though it has its moments.

Matthew Kresal Remakes can be hard to judge, especially if the remake in question is of something regarded as a classic. The 1959 version of The 39 Steps is one such example. It is a remake of the 1935 film that was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and well as being the second of four film versions of the 1915 John Buchan novel. Even without trying to compare it to the Hitchcock film, how well of a film is it? The casting is rather good for the most part. Kenneth More, the quintessential British leading man of the 1950s, takes on the role of Richard Hannay. This Hannay is a very different character from the Hitchcock film in that he's know a British diplomat and quite a bit older. In that case More is perfect casting. More plays the role perfectly as he balances both the thriller and the humor aspects of the character which suits the film well. More's performance is the heart and soul of the film and the film works in large part because of him.The rest of the cast does well. They range from Faith Brook as the woman who sets things in motion, Barry Jones as the mysterious Professor Logan, Brenda De Banzie as Nellie Lumsden and the various actors playing the various Scottish eccentrics that Hannay bumps into on his journey through Scotland. That said the cast isn't perfect.If there's a big miscasting in the film it is Taina Elg as the film's leading lady Fisher. Elg's performance is rather dull to say the least as she shares no chemistry with More whatsoever. Elg also lacks believability thanks to her very shaky accent that puts her far outside the British isles. As a result, Elg is a less then successful replacement for Madeleine Carroll from the Hitchcock film.The production values of the film are good as well. By the time of this version, film-making had changed to allow filming outside the walls of a studio set which means this film doesn't have the staged feeling apparent in the Hitchcock version. There are some beautiful shots of the Scottish countryside throughout the film. The production design of the film is splendid as well though one wonders if Hannay, having just returned from a long time posting overseas, would have a flat as furnished as the one seen in the film. There's also some special effects as well including better then average back projection that makes the train/bridge sequence all the more effective. Sadly the film's score by composer Clifton Parker undermines the film more then helps by over-emphasizing the humor of the film. Overall though the production values serve the film well.Which in a way brings us to the Frank Harvey script and the direction of Ralph Thomas. The film is less an adaptation of the original novel so much as an updated remake of the 1935 Hitchcock film. If you've seen the Hitchcock film you'll recognize much of the dialogue and incidents that occur through the film. This version in many respects is simply an updating of the story to the Cold War era while staying largely faithful to the film made nearly 25 years before. Where it differs from the original heavily is the emphasis of Thomas on inserting humor into the film. Sometimes the humor works (such as the start of the film in Regent's Park) but for the most part it undermines the tension (such as during the speech that Hannay has to give due to a case for mistaken identity which, despite More's best efforts, fails). As a result the film is a mixed bag as it tries to juggle tension and humor and often not succeeding.How does this second version of The 39 Steps hold up? It depends how you look at it. If you've seen the original Hitchcock film then there will likely be some disappointments due to a bit of miscasting and an over emphasis on humor. Overall though, the film has its own merits including Kenneth More's fine performance as Hannay and some good production values. The 1959 version of The 39 Steps then is a good film in its own right but not as good as the Hitchcock film that proceeded it.

loza-1 The only advantage this film has over the Hitchcock version is that it is in colour. However, it is poorly acted and poorly shot. There is a total lack of excitement. It is thus not even a shadow of either the Hitchcock original or the 1970s costume drama.This was an opportunity to get rid of some of the excesses of the Hitchcock version, such as Mr Memory, a character that was not in Lord Tweedsmuir's novel.One inevitably compares Kenneth More's Hannay with Robert Donat and Robert Powell. More's Hannay is but an apology for a character. Taina Elg is not any better, and I got the impression that there was no intimate relationship between the two - acted or otherwise - and that the pair had to be catapulted together.You would not be missing anything if you ignored this film.

Bregelad So far, there have been three film versions of this film, though there has been another announced for this year (2005). I can't really do any of the others down, and in fact the Hitchcock version starring Robert Donat is a classic. This is probably the least good of the three, due to the poor cinematography and lack of continuity in the lighting. That having been said, Kenneth More is really on form in this, and actually uses the dull background to great effect by allowing himself to become the focus of the film at all times. This is, of course, an ideal way to view the film as it fits the story perfectly. Not a film I can watch more than once a year, but definitely worth a viewing every twelve months.