This sequel to "Thank You Jeeves" has some of the laughs yet none of the pizazz of the first entry. Arthur Treacher is back as the prim and proper British valet, minus David Niven and the class of the first film. With his new employer away, Jeeves is conned by two Russians involved in a property scam and ends up in New York City where he is taken in by social climbing former gangsters who think he's an earl. It's the droll class of the continental upper-crust meets the rough and tough nuevo riche who have the class of a cursing cab driver. Patricia Ellis is a reporter who pretends to be a secretary, taking a job for the determined Helen Flint who proves that class is something you are brought up with, not taught. There's a couple of gags equally funny to the much better first entry which ended with this, although Treacher ended up doing the same part with different names. This seems to have been rushed out, proving that some of the exec's of the classic era of movie making thought like some of the exec's today, with dollar signs instead of creative brains. Still, it's an adequate diversion that doesn't strain the brain and is over within a decent amount of time. A chase sequence makes up for slow patches and some lame dialog.

I agree with all the other reviewers. This movie was a bad error of judgment and has little to commend it. "Thank You, Jeeves" was so good in all departments, especially in writing, acting and production values, but this follow-up is just a weak attempt to take the audience's money and deliver very little in return. It's not just disappointing, it's plain boring. No, it's worse than plain boring, it's taking money under false pretenses. In fact, the movie has so little to commend it, one wonders why 20th Century-Fox bothered to offer it as a DVD. If they wanted to issue a "B" movie, I could enumerate over two hundred Fox releases that were far more deserving of a DVD pressing than this marking time, plain boring and totally inept excuse for a movie. No, perhaps "inept" is the wrong word. If it was inept, perhaps it would at least gain the attention's attention. "Lifeless"! That's what the movie is - lifeless in every sense of that word. Lifeless story, lifeless direction, lifeless acting, lifeless photography, lifeless sets, lifeless score, lifeless editing, lifeless...

When I acquired the two Jeeves films that Arthur Treacher did I learned that Darryl Zanuck and 20th Century Fox because of the success of Thank You Jeeves wanted to buy David Niven's contract from Sam Goldwyn. But Goldwyn balked. Zanuck wanted to make a series of films based on the P.G. Wodehouse characters, but it was not to be. One wonders about David Niven's career had that happened, but in terms of this film Jeeves without Wooster was a bit of a let down for Wodehouse purists.The way it worked is that his impulsive and bored master was constantly getting into problems over his head and Jeeves would pull him out. He was the steady rock of the team.But in Step Lively Jeeves it is Arthur Treacher who gets used by a pair of conmen, Georges Givot and Alan Dinehart. These two convince Treacher he's the heir to Sir Francis Drake and there's a hidden treasure that is his by right. And of course if folks want to invest in the finding of said treasure why Dinehart and Givot are ready to help.Their con game gets a stroke of luck as a former bootlegger who stashed his loot and is now rich is desperate to crash society take up Treacher's cause. John Harrington and Helen Flint are a pair too good to be true, but in itself causes problems for our two conmen.Step Lively Jeeves is a funny enough film, but it's all cockeyed as Jeeves is supposed to be the smart one.

I like P. G. Wodehouse, but this film is not in the same category as A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS. That film showed the Wodehouse's characterizations and situations at their funniest. This one seems strained. But it's cast is a nice one, and it has an interesting social historic note to it.Alan Dinehart and George Givot are planning to make Arthur Treacher (Jeeves) their guinea pig in a scam in which he is the heir to the supposed "millions" of pounds estate of the English sea hero Sir Francis Drake. Incredibly, in the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of foolish people in the U.S., the British Empire, and elsewhere, paid money to the head of a scam in which the people were told they were heirs to Drake's fortune. It was not until just before World War II that the scam was finally cracked. It is curious that this 1937 film actually used such a current swindle in it's plot, but they may have felt it would have increased the audience for an otherwise mediocre film.