User Reviews

From the perspective of 2007, British cinema in the 1950s appears more notable for its supporting players rather than its leading lights, and Thomas's remake of The 39 Steps is no exception... look beyond Moore's 2D Hannay and we find a delicious roll call of character turns: De Banzie's aging nympho', Brook's enigmatic 'spook', Cruickshank's foolish sheriff and especially Joan Hickson's hilarious turn as Miss Dobson, all giggling gawkishness with sensible hair and shoes (look at Miss Marple, and then review Hickson's cinematic career - a real unsung hero if ever there was one). Even the schoolgirls on the train are familiar (Carol White became Loach's Poor Cow; Stranks was a 70s 'Magpie' presenter).

Not a patch on Hitchcock's original nor the faithful 1978 interpretation, but as a snapshot of British 50s cinematic talent it's a must!

It's quite possible to enjoy this 39 Steps, but it helps to see it fresh, without any recent memory of the 1935 Hitchcock version. That one is a classic of suspense, charm, testy romance, and surprises, abetted by two fine performances from Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll. This 1959 Kenneth More vehicle maintains more-or-less the same plot line and contains some very good piece parts. While it doesn't add up to being in the same league with its elder sibling, it's good enough for a pleasant hour-and-a-half entertainment.

When a nanny Richard Hannay (More) had met accidentally earlier in the day is murdered in his rooms after telling him there is an international plot involving ballistic missiles, he realizes he will be blamed by the police. So, after looking through the dead woman's purse and discovering a map where Glenkirk in Scotland is circled, off he goes to see if he can discover the man behind the plot...a man with part of a finger missing. What Hannay encounters along the way is a suspicious school teacher, Miss Fisher (Taina Elg), who turns him in on the train going to Scotland; a fortune teller; an all too knowledgeable professor; two killers; a clever escape while handcuffed to Fisher and, finally, the secret only Mr. Memory, a music hall performer, can unlock.

The movie has several good elements, especially the charm and confidence of Kenneth More as Hannay; some wonderful Scottish scenery (the movie is in color); great train rides and one exciting train escape; a ripely eccentric performance by Brenda de Banzie as a fortune-telling realist who helps Hannay; a menacingly friendly appearance by Barry Jones; a funny performance by Joan Hickson as a twittering school teacher that reminded me of a middle- aged Miss Marple on amphetamines; and an all too brief performance by Faith Brook as the nanny. For nostalgia buffs, the movie opens with the great J. Arthur Rank gong doing its reverberating thing.

Sadly, there is little chemistry between More and Elg. She most often only looks irritated. The spirit of the movie aims for light-hearted charm mixed with thrills, something More was very good at. To make the movie work, however, director Ralph Thomas and his editor needed to bring more energy to many of the thrills. Often the music score is used to set the tone, which is not always matched by the pace of the movie. To give Thomas credit, he was capable of delivering some menacing thrills as well as some fine, broad comedy. If you can track them down, The Clouded Yellow (1951), for romantic thrills and menace, and Doctor in the House (1954) and Doctor at Sea (1955), for comedy, are well worth viewing.

If you like Kenneth More and don't mind a relatively undemanding but pleasant adventure, you might enjoy this movie. I did. If you are one of those movie goers who fixate on how awful remakes of classics are, and indignantly make comparisons, this one will probably give you conniptions.

The 39 Steps is directed by Ralph Thomas and adapted to screenplay by Frank Harvey from the novel of the same name written by John Buchan. It stars Kenneth More, Taina Elg, Brenda De Banzie, Barry Jones, Reginald Beckwith and Faith Brook. Music is by Clifton Parker and cinematography by Ernest Steward.

Some found it hard to differentiate this interpretation of the classic novel from the superb Alfred Hitchcock version made in 1935. Which is a shame because on its own terms this is a fun packed mystery boosted by More's effervescent charm.

Story is a cracker, Richard Hannay (More) finds himself up to his neck in espionage after a mysterious lady is stabbed to death in is flat. Trying to get to the bottom of the mystery puts him in grave danger and takes him North to Scotland, where he hopes he can clear himself of the suspected murderer rap - and unravel the words he heard - The 39 Steps.

No! It isn't as good as Hitch's film, choosing to replace out and out suspense with a more humoristic approach, but the chase yarn aspects are briskly directed by Thomas, and the Scottish locations provided a wonderful backdrop to the fun drama. This same year Hammer Films put a different spin on The Hound of the Baskervilles, with fine results. So it be with the Rank Organisation and this take on the Buchan story. Good fun and well worth a look if you haven't seen it before. 7/10

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.

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.

1958's "The 39 Steps" was an outdoor remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1935 classic of an innocent man on the run for a murder he didn't commit, involved in an international spy ring. Director Ralph Thomas and producer Betty Box keep the pace swiftly moving as Kenneth More's Richard Hannay makes the acquaintance of Faith Brook's secret agent Nannie, only to have her stabbed to death in his own flat with a knife off the wall. The only clue he has is located in Scotland, trying to avoid authorities during the lengthy journey from London, the word boomerang uppermost in his mind, and the master spy sporting a cut off finger on his left hand. It's most enjoyable but so breezy that suspense is decidedly lacking, but it manages to hit the bullseye more often than not. Location photography in Scotland truly brings this updated version to vibrant, colorful life, although Finnish-born leading lady Taina Elg doesn't truly enter the story until the final third. Unbilled bits from newcomers Jill Haworth and Barbara Steele coincide with reliable stalwarts like Sam Kydd, Duncan Lamont, and Michael Goodliffe.

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

Often criticised for being a shot-for-shot remake of the Hitchcock original, this film is in fact a perky little thriller which benefits from Kenneth More being a more sympathetic leading man than Robert Donat (he was somewhat aloof) in the '39 version. True, the film trades heavily off the script for the Hitchcock version, and true it does not go back to the original novel for context, spirit or historical setting in the way the '78 version does; but for me, the film is the jewel among the three. As well as a pacy and fun thriller, it catches the spirit of the England and Scotland of the time. It is also interesting to note the role of the two hit-men characters; they are shadowy background figures in the '39 version, but here they are more fully flushed out (and well played by Duncan Lamont and Michael Goodlife). In the '78 version (and the unofficial remake called North By Northwest) the role of the hit-men is further developed and the suspense increased as a result.

Other things to watch out for in the '59 version are Sidney James, Brian Oulton and a host of supporting players (not to mention Tania Elg's legs in the remake of the stocking-removing scene, all the more intriguing for being in colour). Long available on VHS in the UK, this film now sadly seems to be deleted and is much missed.

Since Alfred Hitchcock's well-known version from 1935, there have been two further adaptations of John Buchan's "The 39 Steps". The 1978 version with Robert Powell kept the pre-World War I setting and was much more faithful to Buchan's plot than Hitchcock had been. The 1959 version, however, was a remake of Hitchcock's film, keeping much of the plot, and even some of the dialogue, of his version. (It came out in the same year as "North by Northwest", which can be seen as Hitchcock's own unacknowledged remake of his own film).

Just as Hitchcock updated the story to the thirties, so this one updates it to the fifties. Modern audiences tend to assume that the villains in the Hitchcock film are agents of Nazi Germany, although this is never made explicit and for thirties audiences Stalin's Russia might have suggested itself as an alternative possibility. In the 1959 film, made during the Cold War, there is little doubt that the villains are working for the Soviet Union, although again this is never explicitly stated.

In this version the hero, Richard Hannay, is not a Canadian (as he was in Hitchcock's film) but an Englishman, recently returned from working in the Middle East. (In Buchan's novel he was a Scot who had worked in South Africa). He meets by chance a woman who reveals to him that she is a spy, working for British Intelligence, and has uncovered a plot by a mysterious organisation known as "The Thirty Nine Steps" to steal the top-secret plans for a new British ballistic missile. (In Hitchcock's version the secret information related to a new aircraft engine). She tells Hannay that she must leave for Scotland immediately, but while he is out of the room, she is killed by two hit men. Fearing he will be accused of her murder, he decides to continue her mission and catches a train to Scotland. The plot continues along much the same lines as Hitchcock's, although there are a few changes. The heroine whom Hannay meets on the train is, for example, a sports teacher at a girls' public school. There are also some added scenes, such as the one where Hannay stays at an inn whose landlady turns out to be a spiritualist medium.

Hitchcock's film was a comedy-thriller which combined suspense with humour, and the remake was intended in the same vein. Ralph Thomas was known as a director of both comedies (such as the "Doctor" films) and thrillers (such as "The Clouded Yellow") so he doubtless seemed the right man for the job. Compared to the original, however, this film is a pedestrian affair. To be fair to Thomas, part of the blame lies with the actors. Kenneth More plays Hannay as the sort of decent, middle-class stiff-upper-lipped English gentleman which had become his stock-in-trade, a characterisation which seems stolid and uninteresting next to the panache of Robert Donat's dashing action hero. The casting of the Finnish actress Taina Elg as Miss Fisher was an unsuccessful attempt to inject some Continental glamour into the film. Elg always comes across as dull and unglamorous, especially when compared to Madeleine Carroll who played the equivalent role in the Hitchcock film, and her foreign accent makes it difficult to accept her as a British schoolmistress.

Some of the blame for the film's comparative failure, however, must lie with the director and scriptwriters. Some of the scenes, such as Hannay's escape on the Forth railway bridge, are indeed better done here than they were in the original, which is perhaps not surprising given that Thomas evidently had more financial resources available to him than did Hitchcock. The film as a whole, however, lacks the sense of movement and excitement which characterised Hitchcock's. The attempts at humour generally fall flat. The scene with the milkman is mishandled; in the original the humour arises from the fact that the milkman refuses to believe the truth but readily believes Hannay's false story about being a lover escaping from a jealous husband. In the remake Hannay simply comes out with the invented story without any attempt to tell the true one. The other comic high point of Hitchcock's film, the scene at the political meeting, here becomes an attempt to give a lecture to the assembled schoolgirls, and loses much of its point.

This is not a particularly bad film, and is certainly not the worst Hitchcock remake. (That dubious distinction must belong to Gus van Sant's horrible version of "Psycho"). Nevertheless, the filmmakers seem to have failed to realise that trying to improve on Hitchcock's version was a vain endeavour. Had they wanted to make a new version of "The 39 Steps" they should have gone back to Buchan, as the makers of the 1978 film did. 5/10

This is a good film, bringing up to date the previous Robert Donat version. Kenneth More, who seemed to appear in every British film I watched in the 1950s, is excellent as Richard Hannay. What I like about this film is the interlacing of humour as well as the sinister threatening of the enemy. The fact that we are never really told who the "enemy" is adds to the tension and the mystery, but the real strength lies in the humour - the impersonation of the whistling milk man, the handcuffing together of Hannay and Fisher, and the way that the landlady identifies with the "runaway couple" reminding "McDougal" of their own courting days. The climax in the theatre is a little unbelievable with the audience watching dancing girls minutes after the Memory Man has been shot, for example, and we are not told how Hannay and Fisher managed to get from Perthshire to London with every policeman in Great Britain after them! The authentic Scottish scenery, especially Waverley Station and the Forth Bridge, adds to the film. I first saw this film in about 1960; I have seen it about a dozen times since, and I keep enjoying it!

I recorded this expecting the Hitchcock version, but ended up with this the 1950's version instead. So now I have seen three versions of this film and although not terrible unfortunately this is the worst of the three, though that is not to say this is a bad film. Kenneth Moore plays Richard Hannay here, the man framed for murder that leads to a desperate man hunt all tied in with the mysterious 'boomerang'. This version goes for a lighter more comedic touch but that does not stop the movie being fun, with some quaint set pieces and some proper British stiff upper lip bravado from Kenneth Moore. Enjoyable and worth another go.

I can't remember much of the original film version of THE 39 STEPS but seeing this remake a couple of days ago I got the distinct feeling that it's rather inferior to the Hitchcock version . Much of the problem lies with the director Ralph Thomas who has a long and successful track record of making comedies and he seems unsuited for thrillers , everything seems a little too lightweight here and it's not helped by the cheery and jovial musical score or indeed Sid James playing a straight role as a lorry driver . It should also be pointed out that while Kenneth More plays an affable type of hero in Richard Hannay he lacks the dashing charm of Robert Donat in the original and is probably less effective than the slightly angry young man of Robert Powell in the latter 70s remake . More's Richard Hannay would probably have appeared too much of an old fashioned hero in 1959 to be taken entirely serious . He's by no means bad but remember DR NO was just around the corner and that movie turned the world upside down as to what made a cinematic hero . That's the problem , everything is too old fashioned from the polite tea parties to actresses in their late 20s/early 30s playing schoolgirls

There is another problem and that's the screenplay sticks to closely to the tone of the original . I dispute what it says in the IMDb trivia section about this movie being a shot for shot remake of the original Hitchcock version but it totally lacks an updated feel . War clouds were approaching when THE 39 STEPS was made in 1935 while the 1970s version used the approaching great war as its backdrop but does THE THIRTY NINE STEPS of 1959 feel like the West is engaged on a cold war crusade against communism ? There seems to be little sense of a political time and place with the bad guys coming across more of a criminal gang than traitors to the country . Unless I'm mistaken I don't think the word " Communism " features once

A very disappointing remake . I recommend the original or the 1978 version

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.

Seeing Kenneth More on a cast list generally means you're getting something of strong English stock, very stiff upper lip but with a touch of humour, and that is exactly what we have here.

Our story starts when a nanny drops a rattle, and ends - as the classic Hitchcock thriller does - with Mr Memory at the music hall. Between we have a romp across Scotland with More and Taina Elg, and lots of intrigue.

Nothing special, and a little bit colourless, this 39 Steps is a time-filler, nothing more. Donat and Carroll had sex appeal, but that's missing here. The Robert Powell version, although good, is mainly remembered for the Big Ben finale, which at least gave something different to the tale.

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 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.

This is one of those rare movies for which I feel no need to give you a recapitulation. Although it has the reputation of being more true to John Buchan's novel than the classic Hitchcock thriller, it is no such thing. It is a remake of the 1935 version, updated for a post-war world, in color, with a goodly amount of location shooting in the Scottish Highlands.

Some of the details have been changed, but not for the better. Kenneth More shows none of the hysteria-induced humor of Robert Donat, although the sequence where More gets a lift from ex-con Sid James as a trucker and spends some time with fake psychic Brenda de Banzies are a couple of worthy star cameos.

I trust I will insult no one if I say that More and Taina Elg are no Donat and Madeleine Carroll, that writer Frank Harvey is no match for Charles Bennett and Ian Hay, and as for director Ralph Thomas, well, he was a fine director, but come on, it's Hitchcock for the earlier version, directing his first talkie masterpiece. This version is good, it is solid, the camerawork is excellent, the pacing is good, but every second invites comparison to the 1935 version, and suffers thereby.

Kenneth More is badly miscast as the dashing young hero, Richard Hannah, playing a desperate man 'on the run.' A young Roger Moore, would have been a far better choice whereas Kenneth More, looks looks and sounds too much like a middle aged civil servant, who sees his predicament as nothing more than a bit of a lark - and with his cheery demeanour, he renders the character as totally unconvincing. Hannay's escape from the train has our 'hero' still wearing his suit and tie as he hitches a lift from lorry driver, Sid James. The problem in this scene is that the make up and costume department didn't take the trouble to make sure Hannay look dishevelled and sweaty. Instead we see him sitting in the cab of the lorry, without a spot of grime or dirt on his face or clothes. His jolly exterior throughout all his trials and tribulations wears very thin by the end of the film. Instead of a thriller, we have a light comedy, where there are few real dramatic or nerve tingling moments. It's all too sanitised and even when the flirtatious landlady, played by Brenda de Banzie tries to compromise him, he cheerily dismisses any such sexual impropriety and quickly escapes from her amorous clutches. The film is is essentially a light hearted romp through the Scottish countryside with our very unlikely hero always keeping one step ahead of the police. The film hasn't aged well.

The colour version of "The 39 Steps" of 1959 is a remake of Hitchcock's black and white classic of 1935 and adds nothing new to the story or the film. There was even a third version on a high budget some 20 years later, and then another after another 20 years, but nothing beats Hitchcock. Kenneth More is good enough and well up to Robert Donat's original, but although in colour there is less blood in this version than in Hitchcock's with his special knack for suggestive innovations. If you don't know the story and haven't seen Hitchcock's version, it might be highly rewarding and exciting, but if you have been through Hitchcock's treatment you will yawn here. Ralph Thomas is no Hitchcock, although he was better than Hitchcock at comedies, and although all his films are good, it might have been a mistake to try to remake a classic Hitchcock film.

(1959) The 39 Steps MYSTERY THRILLER ESPIONAGE

Adapted from the novel by John Buchan, the second of four adaptions that has traveler, Richard Hannay (Kenneth More) attempting to return a baby rattler to a nanny (Faith Brook) pushing her baby carriage. It was obvious from the get-go she was attempting to follow some guy holding a remote control toy boat. And by the time she reaches to the road, a car with two men then make an attempt to run her over. The next scene then has a law enforcement officer present asking questions while the nanny was being driven to the nearest hospital. While this was happening Hannay took the liberty to take a deeper look inside her baby stroller. And inside is no baby but covered by the baby blanket is a small handgun and her purse, and decides to confiscate those two particular items from the pram for the intention of returning them and meeting her. And by the time his business with the officer was over, he then heads toward the hospital where she was taken, only to find out later she had already left. Upon Hannary heading back to the flat, he decides to look inside the contaminants in her handbag some more, and notices their were two tickets to see a stage show on a particular time. And he decides to take advantage of this by using one of the two tickets, anticipating the nanny would show up and use the other one he left for the doorman to meet him.

If Hitchcock's version of "The 39 Steps" is the Mona Lisa then this version is the Mona Lisa painted by a second-rate art student or even a not-very-talented child. It was directed by Ralph Thomas, which says a lot, and written by Frank Harvey and they change things just enough not to make it a carbon copy, using actual Scottish locations and casting Kenneth More, who is a very different Richard Hannay from Robert Donat.

Actually More was a very personable actor and it's he, and he alone, who makes this as entertaining as it is; just don't expect too much from the poor man. Taina Elg is the pretty but pretty non-descript heroine though Barry Jones is an excellent villain and Brenda De Banzie does her best to banish thoughts of Peggy Ashcroft. Photographed in colour by Ernest Steward so its also quite easy on the eye.