Best version to watch?
there are several. This was mediocre. Which one should I watch?
shareWithout question, watch the truly outstanding 1935 version. Hitchcock was breaking new ground and was ahead of his time.
share
MovieChat Forums > The 39 Steps (2008) Discussion > Best version to watch?
[deleted]
The Hitchcock version is marvellous.
Its that man again!!
I think I'm going to make my way through them all, because my father saw the 70s version, and I certainly want to see the Hitchcock. Saw this one first because it was on PBS, and you can at least credit this adaptation with having enough to it to make me interested to see the other versions, despite knowing that they aren't the same.
shareThe Hitchcock version is overrated crap. Not only is it nothing like the novel, it is also highly illogical and in no way ahead of its time. The only adaptation that holds up well is the 1970s version starring Robert Powell; it has a few changes but unlike the Hitchcock version it doesn't stray very far from the source. The 1970s version also got a spin-off TV series called 'Hannay', which was quite good and starred Robert Powell again.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"
Watch the Hitchcock version.
Its that man again!!
I'd watch the one with Robert Powell as that is actually quite close to the book. There is almost nothing in the Hitchcock film that is traceable to the book.
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
"There is almost nothing in the Hitchcock film that is traceable to the book".
So what ?? This is movie base, not book review. Who says a film can't be better than the book it's based on.I think the Hitchcock version is fantastic.
The idea that there's nothing in Hitchcock's version traceable to the book is complete horsesh*t anyway. Plenty of the story is still recognizable. I also disagree with this notion that the 1978 version SO MUCH closer. They're both way different than the book and there's nothing wrong with that.
shareI think the Hitchcock version is well paced, a good balance of comic relief and romance against the cloak and dagger. It is my favourite version.
The Robert Powell version was a lot more faithful to the book, it plays straighter than Hitchcock, and was very entertaining. I also very much enjoyed the TV series Hannay back in the day, but now find it a little lacking.
You have to see both these versions, and then decide which you prefer, they both have good things going for them.
Kenneth Moore was in the one which was a lack luster copy of the Hitchcock. It's not a terrible movie, just not a good one.
I have yet to see the 2008 TV version.
Much more enjoyable than the stuffy 1930s Hitchcock version.
I'd say the 1959 version is the best one to watch.
The Hitchcock version is so highly rated because it's Hitchcock and many of his films are more highly rated than the should be just because he's Hitch. Bit like the Beatles with their albums.
BuddyLove63 is an ignorant, utter nincompoop.
shareIf you want Hitchcock, should probably watch North by Northwest instead, which is basically a remake and Hitch's most mature thoughts on this kind of material.
shareI'd never rumbled the similarity between 'The 39 Steps' and 'North By Northwest' before. As regards the best version of 'Steps' I would choose the Hitchcock version too. The 1978 version (Robert Powell) does offer variations on the original. Whereas the 1959 version (Kenneth More) is a very close remake of Hitchcock.
shareThanks. The 78 and 59 versions seem kind of hard to find, although I suppose they may be on youtube.
shareI haven't seen those versions on You Tube. I came across another version that I had never heard of. You Tube have got a recording of the 2014 West End stage version. There are only 4 actors in it. That one sounds as though it could be less exciting version to watch.
shareI saw the theatrical version last month, live, which is where my interest in all this started. It's not bad, but requires having seen the Hitchcock version -- and also a lot of other Hitchcock movies -- since it's constantly making allusions to those. It's also rather campy at times. It's amazing the way they can do the entire story with just four actors.
Last night I saw the 1978 Robert Powell version on Youtube, which has a fair, if small screen copy. It's okay. Not without problems. There's too much time spent with people talking in offices, which gets boring. There's a scene missing in which the girl reacts to the death of her fiance. Overall, just a bit dry, though with extremely high tension at the ending.
https://youtu.be/gtleeGbN_I0
I'm glad you got to see the Robert Powell version. Those office scenes get in the way of the momentum I agree. Some good character acting you might appreciate in the Kenneth More version. Especially James Hayter as the Memory Man. His end scene is even more poignant than in the Hitchcock version. Brenda De Banzie is good too as the superstitious woman who takes Hannay in.
I will probably give the stage production on You Tube a try in light of what you said. I wouldn't thought it possible to present this with only four actors and with the constraints of the stage making it difficult.
Thanks for the tip. Maybe will get to it one day. Right now having seen three different versions recently is enough. :)
Yes, they even include the sheep! Which I miss in the non-Hitchcock versions by the way. :)
1935 version without question.
share