The 39 Steps (1935)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Touches You

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

What strikes me most in this film is the overacting of most of its actors. I guess since they only had eight years of sound, they were still used to it. The problem for my taste is that it takes me out of the film, which on the other hand is not bad, but I can not get in.The film is not bad, it has a good picture. The make-up, hairdressing wardrobe are fine. Although it is true, for me Robert Donat is not a casting success.I do not usually like the suspense master's wheel, and this is no exception. It is very simple to roll, not complicated, so you need to make many inserts to narrate.Although the film has adventure and in the few minutes that lasts, many things happen, on the other hand, as I say, I do not get

This film is a great example of why we love to watch Alfred Hitchcock. Not only is this a good mystery-thriller (written by John Buchan, Charles Bennett, & Ian Hay) but it is well directed by Alfred Hitchcock. He was always very good at making his films very suspenseful (even his silent romantic films had trace elements of suspense in them).The film is exactly as the plot reads - but so much better than described: Richard Hannay is a visitor to London and finds himself mixed up in a case of murder with secret agents on his tail and he is determined to break up this massive spy ring.If you like spies/secret agent films, a murder mystery, and/or Alfred Hitchcock then you might like this film - it's one of Hitchcock's best movies and worth watching.8/10

The 39 Steps of 1935 is a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock and stars such people as Robert Donat. This is one of those films considered to be not only the first signs of what Hitchcock would do in his later life, but also a film that is considered one of the very best British cinema has to offer. I though have to disagree, now don't get me by any stretch wrong here, I like this movie and I thought it was a good watch, but I just couldn't look at this and say it was great let alone really liking it.The story is exciting to be fair, man on the run, secret agents, a man who can memorise anything he see's or hears, it is absolutely crazy, but good. The plot plays our rather nicely, the timing is crazily off mostly because of its short running time and bits can seem rushed but all in all it is fairly exciting. I think it feels different than from other films of the day, it just seems much more like what you might see in films today, whether or not this has stood the test of time well that is for you to see, but it still feels refreshing-ish amongst the classic films.Robert Donat is our main man, trying to find out what these 39 steps are all about and also getting into a few pickles along the way. Donat is fine in the role and is really good here, not only is he calm and sophisticated but he also deals with the more serious moments well, and still in them can seem oddly charming. Madeleine Carroll is alright as Pamela but I did feel no one in the cast can quite match Donat and his performance. The characters are very complex I will say, Hitchcock makes sure he is not letting us the viewer know what the hell is going on until the every end, a good bit of suspense.And to the legend himself, Alfred Hitchcock whose skill is plain to see but also in my opinion overrated here. Now alright alright I'm not saying he's bad here, far from it but what I think is that people who watch this and see Hitch directed it instantly just say he directed it amazingly and he makes it good. Now although I don't fully disagree, I think it is actually those like Robert Donat who make this enjoyable and the whole thrilling plot is based on a book, Hitch does do a fine job, just not as good as he would do one day.If your looking at this film as either a Hitchcock fan or want to see his movies, I wouldn't say don't watch but don't also think this will be a masterpiece, it isn't all perfect. It is the length that didn't work for me and I even love short movies but it just feels too rushed like I previously said and you can't fully engage into the characters and their lives, we just don't get to know them well enough. I hear a lot of people compare this to the future Hitchcock film "North by Northwest" and that is true it is the man on the run kind of film, but what I will say is Hitchcock didn't copy this when he made that, this is very much his own style and one that is in line with British Cinema, not over in Hollywood.Overall I did (even if my review seems kind of oddly negative) enjoy this piece of cinema. I would recommend it to people mainly because I think some will really enjoy it, the excitement is there and the leading character is well acted out. I do however feel this is yet another old film overrated by us in the future, I mean not by a lot but just watch it properly and don't keep thinking about Hitchcock directing it.

Forget the other two film versions (from 1959 and 1978) as well as the long-running stage adaptation that has graced the London stage for several years now. Hitchcock's version of the John Buchan classic still has the power to surprise and astonish eighty years after its premiere.Basically it has very little to do with the Buchan source-text: Hitchcock merely takes the title ("The Thirty-Nine Steps") as a pretext for constructing a highly entertaining comedy-thriller that's not without its sinister overtones - for example the sado- masochistic implications of Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) and Pamela (Madeleine Carroll) being chained together by the hands as they try to escape the clutches of Professor Jordan (Godfrey Tearle) and his gang. The two roam the Scottish Highlands and even spend the night together in a sequence notable for its sexual subtext.As with many of Hitchcock's British thrillers, THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS is replete with memorable supporting performances. As a noted stage actor of his day, Tearle comes across as polite, well-mannered and calm; the only indication we have of his sinister nature is the fact that one of his fingers has been severed (emphasized in a deliberate close-up). John Laurie is a suspicious Highland crofter, interested more in money than in sheltering Hannay and Pamela; his surly characterization contrasts with that of Peggy Ashcroft as his spouse, a tidy yet sympathetic woman (even if her Scottish accent is a little forced).The thriller comes to a head in an old-style variety theater, where Mr. Memory Man (Wylie Watson) is forced to admit the secrets of the Thirty-Nine Steps in the middle of his stage act, interrupting the performance and startling a packed house. Hitchcock shows a masterly grasp of popular culture of the time; the combination of sweat, dirt, good fellowship and classlessness that prevailed in variety theaters, contrasting starkly with the class-ridden world outside.Shot on a low budget, with some location shooting in Scotland as well as a memorable sequence where Hannay escapes on a train, this THIRTY-NINE STEPS is a unique cinematic experience.