Les 39 marches

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 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.

Having recently re-read John Buchan's (short) novel "The 39 Steps" and already owning the 1935 and 1959 videos, a reappraisal seemed appropriate. While the '59 version is a delightful movie, it is a long way removed from the novel. On screen, Kenneth More is more Kenneth More than Richard Hannay. There are one or two "I don't think so" scenes such as Perce's (Sid James) attitude to a wanted killer. But we'll let that pass. You have to look at the production in its own right, because as a movie version of the book, it just doesn't make it. The Hitchcock version was much better in that respect. However, the Kenneth More film is utterly enjoyable as a bit of light drama. Certainly the underlying plot is worthy and overall, I'd give it 7 out of 10.

An enjoyable adventure, notable for good location shots of London, not the obvious tourist's traps, and the highlands of Scotland. Having identifiable locations increases the local tourist trade, many people want to visit the"scene of the crime".

Does it matter that the film didn't follow the book too carefully. Was it entertainment in its own right, or do we want to follow the scenes and dialogue, like some old theatre and concert goers with their carefully annotated "libretti". No,the movie industry stands on its own feet, and of course it uses literature. Didn't the original author not take classical themes, innocent man accused of criminal activity, trustworthy persons in power turn out to be the baddies, boy meets girl, loses girl, refinds girl. There really cannot be total originallity in any modern work of creativity, all is based on what has gone before.

Thirty nine steps, a ripping good yarn, to be enjoyed in the spirit in which it was offered.

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.