ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

JohnHowardReid I agree with all the other reviewers. This movie was a bad error of judgment and has little to commend it. "Thank You, Jeeves" was so good in all departments, especially in writing, acting and production values, but this follow-up is just a weak attempt to take the audience's money and deliver very little in return. It's not just disappointing, it's plain boring. No, it's worse than plain boring, it's taking money under false pretenses. In fact, the movie has so little to commend it, one wonders why 20th Century-Fox bothered to offer it as a DVD. If they wanted to issue a "B" movie, I could enumerate over two hundred Fox releases that were far more deserving of a DVD pressing than this marking time, plain boring and totally inept excuse for a movie. No, perhaps "inept" is the wrong word. If it was inept, perhaps it would at least gain the attention's attention. "Lifeless"! That's what the movie is - lifeless in every sense of that word. Lifeless story, lifeless direction, lifeless acting, lifeless photography, lifeless sets, lifeless score, lifeless editing, lifeless...

bkoganbing When I acquired the two Jeeves films that Arthur Treacher did I learned that Darryl Zanuck and 20th Century Fox because of the success of Thank You Jeeves wanted to buy David Niven's contract from Sam Goldwyn. But Goldwyn balked. Zanuck wanted to make a series of films based on the P.G. Wodehouse characters, but it was not to be. One wonders about David Niven's career had that happened, but in terms of this film Jeeves without Wooster was a bit of a let down for Wodehouse purists.The way it worked is that his impulsive and bored master was constantly getting into problems over his head and Jeeves would pull him out. He was the steady rock of the team.But in Step Lively Jeeves it is Arthur Treacher who gets used by a pair of conmen, Georges Givot and Alan Dinehart. These two convince Treacher he's the heir to Sir Francis Drake and there's a hidden treasure that is his by right. And of course if folks want to invest in the finding of said treasure why Dinehart and Givot are ready to help.Their con game gets a stroke of luck as a former bootlegger who stashed his loot and is now rich is desperate to crash society take up Treacher's cause. John Harrington and Helen Flint are a pair too good to be true, but in itself causes problems for our two conmen.Step Lively Jeeves is a funny enough film, but it's all cockeyed as Jeeves is supposed to be the smart one.

MartinHafer This is one of two Jeeves & Wooster films released by Twentieth-Century Fox on a single DVD. However, oddly, this follow-up to "Thank You, Jeeves" does NOT have Wooster--just his manservant, Jeeves! So, while they were unable to get David Niven to return for this film, Arthur Treacher was on hand to reprise his role as the imperturbable butler, Jeeves. As for me, I didn't mind too much, as Treacher was the best character (by far) in the first film--the way Treacher underplayed the guy was terrific.While I did enjoy this second film, it was a bit of a letdown for two reasons. First, without Wooster there was a problem with the film's chemistry. Instead of a Jeeves & Wooster film, it was much more of a gangster film. Second, while Jeeves was supposedly the star of the film, Treacher seemed to have very little to do in the film other than to make a few appearances here and there. So it's clearly not up to the standards of the first film--though it is still enjoyable if you don't expect a Wodehouse story. Well produced...just not up to the standards you'd expect.By the way, if you want to know why Wooster was not in this film, try watching the DVD extra "The World of Wodehouse" on the same DVD. It explains this as well as discusses how different the first and second film were.

theowinthrop I like P. G. Wodehouse, but this film is not in the same category as A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS. That film showed the Wodehouse's characterizations and situations at their funniest. This one seems strained. But it's cast is a nice one, and it has an interesting social historic note to it.Alan Dinehart and George Givot are planning to make Arthur Treacher (Jeeves) their guinea pig in a scam in which he is the heir to the supposed "millions" of pounds estate of the English sea hero Sir Francis Drake. Incredibly, in the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of foolish people in the U.S., the British Empire, and elsewhere, paid money to the head of a scam in which the people were told they were heirs to Drake's fortune. It was not until just before World War II that the scam was finally cracked. It is curious that this 1937 film actually used such a current swindle in it's plot, but they may have felt it would have increased the audience for an otherwise mediocre film.