StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

screenman Kenneth More plays Richard Hannay, the victim of circumstances who finds himself inheriting the job of solving a crime whilst being its chief suspect.Our Ken is a solid, reliable actor who brings a lighthearted touch to most every role he plays. Basically a decent British bod, whether sweating it on the 'Northwest Frontier' or shivering on the Titanic; I don't think he's ever played a baddie. This 1959 version is one of several that includes an earlier, and arguably superior, Hitchcock release. As a More fan, I prefer this one. But that's only my bias talking. Here, he does just look a wee bit bored at times. It's not particularly violent, easy on the drama, with no sex to speak of. There's nice location-work in London and Scotland, good photography, steady editing and adequate sound. Although filmed in colour, most of the time it looks like a deeply-sepia'd black & white. You might need to adjust your settings.Well worth a matinée punt if you're off sick, skiving or unemployed.

Andy Howlett 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.

dbborroughs Kenneth More is Richard Hanny in what is essentially a bright and colorful version of the Hitchcock film. Its the second screen version (followed by the more faithful to source version from the late 1970's and a BBC TV version from a few years ago). Its the classic story of the wrong man on the run having to unravel the mystery that officials are too blind to see. Its a good little film on its own but suffers in comparison to the other versions. There are two problems with the film, first the bright daylight and colors work against the mood. the other problem is Kenneth Moore is too stalwart a hero to be anything other than a man of action. he carries himself with such aplomb that its hard to believe that he could ever not come out on top.. Other versions aside, its a good little film that is fine in its own terms. For me having recently seen the Hitchcock film a couple of times, not to mention the stage adaption I found myself all "stepped" out. Worth a look if you can manage to see it.

Terrell-4 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.