Hitchcock is certainly directed over 10 films to the "THE 39 STEPS". The director who promises, or simply he does not succeed to make a good movie. There are many reasons. Hitch persistently raises and cares for their style. This way of expression in the British film industry is not going well. Specific time. Average and commercial novel, a story loosely based on the novel of the same name, a solid budget and freedom to work were the guarantor of director's success.At the heart of the story is a murder around which interfere an innocent man, a beautiful girl, a lot of plot, mystery and conspiracy. The story is solid, at times illogical and very exciting. Hitchcock's convinced me that probability, logic and detailing are not the key to good film. This genre is needed speed, excitement and tension. I condemn some directors called "masters". Hitch is one of them. I will be more clear, the script is well written and composed, only some segments targeted set aside. Complications are in the right place, even though they appear out of nowhere and keep uncertainty at a high level. The characters are quite interesting, and each is special in its own way. Even those who appear in several scenes fit perfectly into the story.Robert Donat as Richard Hannay is a kind of tragic hero who accepts his fate and searches for truth. Donat's choice for leading actor is a hit. Madeleine Caroll (Pamela) is offensive and frightened female character. The change in her character that comes with the knowledge of the truth is impressive. It is more beautiful and charming.I think the director did not take into account the chemistry between the two main actors. Donat and Carroll made sure that it is. There are especially fine performances by John Laurie as the treacherous Scot who harbors the fugitive, Peggy Ashcroft as his sympathetic wife, Godfrey Tearle as the man with the missing finger, and Wylie Watson as the memory expert of the music halls, who proves to be the hub of the mystery. Hitchcock's magic at work.

A. Hitchcock's mindless and unjustly acclaimed adaptation of J. Buchan's dark and gripping novel makes me think that people in the 1930s, who had no ready access to video, craved for superficial visual crap. The film discards the literary Hannay's agonizing ordeal for survival in a bleak environment and his cryptic challenges, while it opts for trite sexual stereotypes, casting 2 irritating females one of which the murdered agent (no Scudder or black book here, not even the real 39 steps), shamefully sugarcoated by comic overtones & laid-back atmosphere.All in all, a silly movie, not a thriller that pays the slightest tribute to Buchan's story.

A man in London tries to help a counterespionage agent. But when the agent is killed and the man stands accused, he must go on the run to both save himself and also stop a spy ring which is trying to steal top secret information.Of the four major film versions of the novel, Hitchcock's film has been the most acclaimed. In 1999, the British Film Institute ranked it the fourth best British film of the 20th century; In 2004, Total Film named it the 21st greatest British film of all time, and in 2011 named it the second greatest Best Book to Film Adaptation. There is really no denying that Hitchcock's version is best. Who else has even come close. The other honors are a bit harder to understand. This is not even Hitchcock's fourth best film, let alone the fourth best in all of British history...Where Hitchcock's previous film, "The Man Who Knew Too Much", had costs of £40,000, The 39 Steps cost nearly £60,000. Much of the extra money went to the star salaries for Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll. This is ironic in retrospect. Few today (2015) know of Carroll or Donat, whereas Peter Lorre went on to become quite famous for his image and voice.

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.