The 39 Steps (1960)

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

THE 39 STEPS is a '50s-era reworking of the Hitchcock classic and a new adaptation of the famous spy novel by John Buchan. The lead is played by likable man-of-the-moment Kenneth More (fresh from the success of Titanic epic A NIGHT TO REMEMBER) who teams up with Finnish beauty Taina Elg to foil a sinister plot by a gang of conspirators.We always knew that the Hitchcock film would be a hard act to follow but this version makes a decent stab of it, I think. It's set in a dated, far-off world in which the bad guys (such as Michael Goodliffe) are bad in a clean, safe, gentlemanly way straight from the pages of an Enid Blyton book.CARRY ON director Ralph Thomas is an odd choice to helm this adaptation, but he turns out to fit the material well; there's plenty of light comedy here and it works well, particularly a hilarious moment when an unprepared More is forced to lecture a hall of giggling schoolgirls. Meanwhile, the thriller aspects of the plot are just that, thrilling, particularly the train set-piece halfway through. It's pleasing to see More doing a lot of his own stunts, too.Is THE 39 STEPS as good as its elder namesake? No. Is it a light, enjoyable bit of fun in the same vein as Hitch's own NORTH BY NORTHWEST? Wholeheartedly yes. I wasn't expecting to like this, but in the end had a lot of fun with it.

I love this film, and have just taken the opportunity to watch it again on TV. I agree with many here who say the direction is a little stodgy and some of the changes seem pointless, but this film (like several others) is transformed from an 'also ran' to a rather jaunty thriller by the always-excellent Kenneth More. He may not have had a very wide range of characterisations, but he was superb as the indefatigable English everyman who could be relied upon to see the good in everything and always do his level best. The short appearances by Brenda de Banzi and Reginald Beckwith do much to lift this film to a higher level. You've only got to see More in action in such films as 'Reach for the Sky' and 'Genevieve' to observe a true pro in action. The Thirty-Nine Steps may not be the best film ever made or the best version of this story from a technical point of view, but I find it by far the most appealing.

As far as remakes go, this is not a bad one. It is infinitely better than the dreadful remake to Psycho, which quite frankly was pointless and was inferior in every possible way to the chilling (and traumatising) original. I will say right now I do prefer the Hitchcock film, which was really entertaining, suspenseful, well made and had believable chemistry between Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll despite the deviations from the book. Plus it was Hitchcock, who directs while putting a lot of his fashioned touches that instantly made his directorial style recognisable.This remake has its flaws, but there are worse remakes out there (ie.Psycho, Wicker Man). The pacing here is a tad sluggish, there are one or two drawn out scenes that drag a bit. Also Taina Elg looks rather uncomfortable here, no denying she is a lovely lady, but her chemistry with Kenneth More isn't always there. Plus I also felt the direction from Ralph Thomas was on the pedestrian side. I also felt the scripting on occasions lacked the wit and suspense that made the Hitchcock film so memorable.Flaws aside, the plot is still good and intriguing enough, and so is the music which is quite stirring and the stylish camera work. Kenneth More, while he has acted better, is still very likable in the lead role of Richard Hannay, and the location shots of London are excellent, plus the Scottish scenery is stunning. The lighting is okay, could've been brighter in places but it was not distractingly bad or anything. Overall, this is a decent remake, but as I have accentuated many times, the Hitchcock film will always be better, no matter how much it is removed from the source material. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This 1959 version of The Thirty-Nine Steps is so far removed from the original work by John Buchan that it does neither any justice to compare the two.As it is, it has to be taken as a standalone movie and, as such, it fails miserably.The plot, performances (particularly those of the support actors) and set-pieces are all woefully under-par for even a movie of this modest magnitude. The pacing is extremely questionable, with the all-important finale seemingly tacked-on to allow more time for a pointless romance to emerge two-thirds into the film. There is also a slight comedic theme running throughout, odd and inappropriate for an alleged taut espionage thriller. Avoid.2/10