notaris818
!!No spoilers!! Now, I must confess, I like this film (I've probably just turned away thousands of people just by saying that!) but hear me out! I loved Hitchcock's 39 steps - it's a classic! And it's brilliant. And I love Buchan's book - it's exciting and a classic! I love the play 'The 39 steps' - it's hilarious! The secret is to NOT COMPARE this film to any of the above! Let it stand alone - there must be about 20 spin-offs and interpretations of Buchan's book by now - let this one be! Looking at this film, and this film alone, I would say it's rather good. The acting is very good - especially Robert Powell as the 30s gentlemen, and it's always a great pleasure to see John Mills. All round good acting.Secondly, the scenery is fantastic! Just because it's not in 'Modern, blu-ray super HD!' doesn't mean it's not stunning. It's not about the definition of the scenery- it's about how it's shown, and I think this presentation of the Scottish highlands is beautiful.Don Sharp's (the director's) camera-work may not be as epic as Hitchcock's, but it's a solid style and presents this whole 1930s world beautifully.All I can ask is that you give this film a chance - if you don't like it, fine. But treat it on its own, if you see what I mean - don't go off comparing it to God knows what! I hope you enjoy it. It's a good film.
TheLittleSongbird
Although it is not 100% faithful to the book, it is the most faithful in spirit of the four versions I've seen. Of the four though on its own, I do prefer Hitchcock's 1935 film, for how well made and directed it is and how suspenseful it is. This version is better however than the well done if slightly flat 1959 film and the awful 2008 TV adaptation. The pace sags in the middle perhaps, but this is a very well done film both as an adaptation and on its own merits. The locations look beautiful and are very atmospherically photographed, while the score adds much to the often thrilling and suspenseful tone. The script is intelligent and does feel as though it's flowing naturally, and the story is securely paced and the suspense is in equal measure with Hitchcock's like with Hannay's escape from the train. If there is one scene though that I prefer over the Hitchcock film, it's the climax, which I found thrilling and not as rushed. Robert Powell has both the bearing and charm for Richard Hannay, Karen Dotrice is a likable female interest and David Warner is an ever charismatic presence. The villains are suitably ruthless also. All in all, a very well done film, well made, engaging and mostly faithful. 8/10 Bethany Cox
jotix100
"The Thirty Nine Steps", the spy novel by John Buchan, has been adapted for the screen three times. The most famous one being the 1935 version by Alfred Hitchcock which still remains an old favorite by most viewers. The 1959 remake directed by Ralph Thomas was a vehicle for its star, Kenneth Moore. We were intrigued when the Don Sharp 1978 film version when it showed up on a classic channel not long ago.Not having read the novel, we cannot, in all honesty, make an objective assessment of how close to the written page the latest remake is, but we were pleasantly surprised by what Mr. Sharp was able to accomplish. The adaptation was written by Michael Robson. The action used a lot of well known backgrounds. The best of these is the one that takes place in the last sequence of the film in which we are taken inside Big Ben where Hannay, having solved the mystery, goes after the Prussian spies.Robert Powell was effective in his characterization of Hannay, the South African engineer that is drawn, against his will, to be at the center of a manhunt for something he never did. The cast was excellent. John Mills, Eric Porter, David Warner, Donald Pickering, Ronald Pickup, and Karen Dotrice, among them. John Coquillon was the cinematographer and the musical score was created by Ed Welch. Don Sharp's entertaining take on this classic is worth a look.
Christopher Evans
I read one contribution here stating quite correctly that this is not a remake of the Hitchcock film, it is an entirely different treatment of the John Buchan book.Where I thoroughly disagree with that reviewer though is in his comment that some parts of the Hitchcock film were 'stodgy', "particularly the crofter scene"! How he could say that is beyond belief. The crofter scene is BRILLIANT! It involves fantastic acting from all 3 in the scene (including a young John Laurie from Dad's Army) who convey amazing thoughts and emotions without dialogue simply with their eyes and small gestures. It is pure cinema and pure genius as is the rest of that film.The Hitchcock version is light years better than this as a film (near perfect actually) but is only loosely based on a few ideas from the Buchan novel. This is more close to the novel but still strays from its source, wrongly so in this case. The novel is very good but this film drags and is quite poorly directed. It loses most suspense or interest and is very disappointing, I think.
AD
