Perfect cast and a good story

Fantastic!

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

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.

The 39 Steps starts in Regent's Park in London where Richard Hannay (Kenneth More) witnesses a woman (Faith Brooke) with a pram knocked own by a speeding car, he rushes to the aid of the baby in the pram but only finds a gun inside which he keeps. Later that afternoon Hannay manages to meet up with the mysterious woman at a performance of Mr. Memory (James Hayter) at the Palace theatre, they start talking & the woman says she is a secret agent trying to stop the leaking of top secret Government information. Back at Hanny's flat the woman is murdered & Hannay know's the police will suspect him so he takes the gun & the few pieces of information that he managed to learn from the woman & head towards Scotland where she was due to meet her contact & expose the head of the enemy organisation who want to smuggle top secret plans for the 'Boomerang' defense system out of the country. Wanted for murder Hannay finds himself caught up in a plot that could threaten Britain & those who live there...This British production was directed by Ralph Thomas was a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's earlier The 39 Steps (1935) which itself was based on the novel of the same name by John Buchan while yet another big screen version was made as The Thirty Nine Steps (1978) a couple of decades after this, while I liked The 39 Steps for most of it's duration as a fairly gentle & light hearted action adventure I simply didn't understand the end. Now I don't know if I missed something but I couldn't make sense of anything, what the bad guy's plans actually were or how it was all supposed to work. How did Mr. Memory get all the codes & formula's? Was he in on it? How was the guy with a finger missing going to extract the information he needed? Why not just kidnap Mr. Memory & get the information he wanted sooner? How did Hannay know what to ask Mr. Memory at the end? Was Mr. Memory in on it? If he was why didn't he just tell the guy the secret codes? If he wasn't how did Mr. Memory know those top secret things? It all seemed rather random & rushed, the ending should have been explained better & I am sorry if it's just me being stupid (it wouldn't be the first time) but I honestly didn't understand what was meant to be going on, what the bad guy's plan was & how it was all meant to pan out. If the bad guy's had planted the information in Mr. Memories head then why not just photograph it? Why not say it out loud & record it to tape? Why such a complicated & frankly silly plot? Until the last bewildering five minutes or so The 39 Steps had a been a perfectly likable adventure film that moved along at a decent pace, had a few amusing situations as Hannay met an odd assortment of people on his travels & even had some decent action too but that baffling ending ruined it all for me. Again, if it's just me being thick then I apologise but can someone explain what the bad guy's plan was meant to be? If it had worked properly how was it all meant to go down?The 39 Steps looks nice enough, the colourful London & Scottish locations add to the film although maybe the special effects aren't the best, the shot of Hannay hanging on to the side of a speeding looks poor. Director Thomas keeps things moving at a good pace, there are some workmanlike scenes like the part when Fisher overhears the two spies expose their whole plan over a public telephone. Despite the title we never actually see the 39 steps that it refers to apart from when the opening credits play over a still of them. I have never seen Hitchcock's original or read the novel so I cannot compare how this stands up to them.Filmed on location in Scotland & in the studio back in London, this is well made for the time although obviously it does look a bit dated today. It's interesting to see the leading man here, or the hero if you like as a middle aged rather ordinary looking man rather than a super fit, toned muscle bound twenty something that typifies the average action hero today. Legendary comedy actor Sid James has a great little cameo as a truck driver.The 39 Steps is a perfectly good adventure mystery film until the end where it all falls apart, none of it made any sort of sense to me. Maybe I am just being stupid but I couldn't work any reasonable explanation out. I remember really liking the 1978 version with Robert Powell but haven't seen it since the 90's so I think I will watch that again soon.

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

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