The 39 Steps (2008) watch online HD

***SPOILER ALERT*** Hitchcock's 1935 version of 'The 39 Steps' played fast and loose with John Buchan's novel by introducing a plausible and intriguing love interest in a 1930s setting, a nerve-shredding escape on the Forth Rail Bridge and the quirky denouement of 'Mr Memory' at a Music Hall. These radical changes produced a fabulous movie, a pulsating chase thriller all played with great style and with real chemistry between the two leads, Robert Donat and Madeline Carroll.

This expensive, handsome looking TV production reverted to a plot rather closer to the book but retained little of Buchan's original spirit, pace or derring-do. It did, however, steal the love interest idea from Hitchcock but rather than a haughty bystander who gets caught up in events she turns out to be a spy who deliberately hooks up with the hero, Hannay... oh, and her uncle is the traitor... who she cannot shoot at the crucial moment... but an apparently dead German who couldn't shoot straight when conscious rises from the dead to deliver one excellent shot to kill her off just as the two leads finally kiss and she falls into the freezing loch.

But don't worry, folks! Feisty suffragette heroine spy woman inexplicably re-appears in a tacked-on coda, gazing enigmatically across at Hannay just as he sets off for the Western Front. Despite the fact they've both pledged undying love she doesn't bother she sends her dopey brother over rather than give her soul mate so much as a goodbye peck on the cheek. Then again, she's let him think she's dead for four months so why make a fuss now? Stiff upper lip and all that.

Also, the guy from 'Spooks' who played Hannay was charmless and wooden. The whole thing looked sumptuous - pretty high production values and wonderful Scottish scenery make that difficult to blow - but the direction was uninspired and the pacing leaden.

Drivel of the first order.

I really, really enjoyed this. I thought it was light-hearted, entertaining, captured the spirit of the period without getting bogged down in pedantic detail and it fairly zipped along. It was a new version with its own contemporary axes to grind/boxes to tick and on that basis, it worked like a charm for me. And speaking of charm, I think Rupert Penry-Jones is grossly under-rated as an actor and here, he was just perfectly cast and wonderfully skilled in a role almost tailor-made for someone with a light touch and a bit of dash about him. I don't know where people get the idea RPJ is wooden and can't do comedy-his way of commenting with a straight face and a twinkle in his eye is just lovely. Too subtle for some, maybe. And charm? Even when the character was making a klutz of himself he had buckets of charm. Too many nicely detailed moments to count. As to the portrayal of the character of Richard Hannay, it seemed to me truer to the concept of the ordinary man caught up in great events than many others have been. He was presented right from the start as a man looking for something, a man uncertain of his place in the world who was thrown into a situation beyond his control but who did his best, who used what experience and skills he had acquired in life to get himself out of trouble. But he was also a fallible human being who did get out of his depth and who didn't have the perfect answer to everything. People either want an all-knowing, superman-type, one-bound-and-he-was-free hero or they don't. That doesn't make any alternative a wimp or a wet. Hannay here was a clever, talented and resourceful person but also bewildered, confused and scared. I wasn't mad about the addition of the Victoria character but she struck me as far more believable and attractive than any of the introduced love interests that went before. Madeleine Carroll was gorgeous but passive (a stock Hitchcock heroine, quelle surprise!) and the others are just forgettable. I liked the notion that they were both prejudiced and opinionated (a nod to some of the now unacceptable, though of-their-time, opinions stated in Buchan's original) but that they came round to each other as they saw what the other was capable of. And their sarky/comic exchanges were a treat!

Of course it went for shameless audience pleasing and none the worse for that. It obviously succeeded on that score because it got excellent viewing figures-almost 7 and a half million. The romance was delightfully schmaltzy and of course it was sexed up. Hitchcock started that, after all, with his handcuffs and stockings. Big wow-sex did not begin in 1963 and in any case, the Edwardian era (OK, I know this was set in 1914 and George V's reign but it didn't disappear overnight!) wasn't exactly noted for its prudishness, from the top of the social scale down. This was a piece of escapist fiction, not an academic commentary on post-Edwardian, pre-World War One social mores. I loved this and I will love watching it again, so I have ordered the DVD to do just that. And I hope they hire Rupert Penry-Jones to do further Hannays, especially Greenmantle and Mr Standfast. So there!

Shades of Robert Donat, Kenneth More and Robert Powell hover over this festive production from the BBC of John Buchan's classic novel, heck I can't even get Michael Palin's brilliant "Ripping Yarns" spoof out of my head, but it entertained pretty much all the way by taking itself just seriously enough without reverting to knowing post-modern sarcasm or worse yet campness. This is a "Boy's Own Adventure" and can only ever work by playing it straight. Don't mess with the Buchan in other words! Rupert Penry-Jones makes a fine Hannay, good looking, muscular if oddly blonde (the perfect Aryan specimen, ironically enough!) and interacts well with Lydia Leonard as the resourceful suffragette-cum-spy Victoria. I really liked Eddie Marson as the rent collector in the BBC's recent "Little Dorrit" dramatisation and so felt a little short-changed with his early demise. Of course the story is one long chase stopping only long enough for the various action or suspense-punctuating set-pieces and I rather liked the fact that these were accomplished without SFX or CGEN tricks.

I last read the book years and years ago so can't state for certain how faithful to source this was, (I only recall the political meeting episode from the novel if truth be told) but otherwise was perfectly happy to sit back, admire the glorious Scottish scenery, ancient cars period costumes and see True-Brit spunk and ingenuity triumph over the evil Bosche. The plot is of course wholly unbelievable and barely hangs together (including to top things off, a literally death-defying recovery by Victoria at the end to complete the happy ending), but just swallow an improbability pill beforehand and enjoy.

There are a couple of respectful references to Hitchcock scattered about (there must be people out there who think the original Hannay was a Hitch original, so ingrained in the memory is the Robert Donat/Madeleine Carroll film prototype) although quite how "North By North-West's" crop-duster scene found its way in here I'm not sure and perhaps more could have been made of the handcuff-scene, treated much more cheekily by the Master 70 odd years ago.

Nevertheless, I'll take this standard "Tally-Ho!" British fare over Indiana Jones any old day and hope there's a follow-up of sorts as I for one would welcome a revolt into style away from big-budget effects-fests in favour of more homespun dramas like this, tongue-in-cheek or not...

I have to admit that having watched this tonight on BBC1 as part of their Christmas line-up I was incredibly disappointed. The story was changed dramatically from both the 1930s and the 1970s versions, the dynamic action that appeared in both previous well-known incarnations was lacking. They sexed the characters up (I would be the first to admit that I love Penry-Jones in almost everything and he certainly carries off a suit and a uniform extremely well) and in doing so managed to fit the story into 90 rather dull minutes that actually skipped the meaning of the 39 steps completely. Wouldn't recommend you watch this unless you are a fan of Penry-Jones or any of the rest of the cast, stick to the previous versions to get the excitement and drama of the original tale.

I was so prepared to not enjoy this, that when it was automatically recorded by my TiVo as part of the "Mystery" series, I very nearly deleted it without watching. I am a huge fan of Hitchcock, and have likely seen his version of "The 39 Steps" a hundred times. I had read the book years ago and remember thinking that the Hitchcock movie must not have been an adaptation.

Out of boredom, I decided to watch the 2008 version, thinking that I would turn it off and delete it within the first few scenes. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it did indeed resemble - if not follow faithfully - the original book. It held it's own. The characters were likable and well played. I thoroughly enjoyed Lydia Leonard as Victoria. They took liberties with this character, but in a satisfying way.

I will watch it again with my husband, whom I think will enjoy this as well. If you're expecting a remake of Hitchcock's movie, you'll be disappointed. Then again, I can see no reason to remake ANY of Hitchcock's films, so I was happy with this version of the book by John Buchan.

Watching this at face value as a Masterpiece production, it was quite enjoyable. Rich production, lovely looking actors, and enough suspense and drama, with a bit of humor to pass a pleasant evening. Not having watched the previous versions, I didn't know what to expect and didn't have any expectations. I was looking for ninety minutes of entertainment and intrigue, and found it. If it had been called anything else besides the classic 39 Steps maybe there wouldn't be such a fuss. Sit back and enjoy, and stop comparing to what's been done. It's rare that a Masterpiece production is not worth watching. I'll check out the other versions eventually, but this one decidedly was more than watchable.

I suppose that i am biased given that having seen Hitchs version i think that this is one of the great films of all time.I tried to watch this TV version with an open mind.However after about 45 minutes i just lost interest and made myself a cup of tea.The opening 15 minutes was quite reasonable but after that i felt that it fell away badly.furthermore it is invidious to compare the leads of this with Robert Donat and Madelaine Carroll.Even the sometimes bland Kenneth Moore did a reasonable job.Quite frankly bearing in mind the many books written by John Buchan it is difficult to understand why they chose to remake this.

I really don't understand why film makers feel the need to change the plot of books. Then if you apply this to an absolute classic it seems totally crazy. The result is like a mutant spawn from the Hallmark channel and Barbara Cartland. Now, I have nothing against either in their own right but for the BBC to claim to be the forefront of drama and then to produce this stuff is pushing it a bit far. I considered putting forward a number of goofs but lost count of the possible entries as there were so many, a simple check of locations and weather conditions would have given the story a little more credibility.All this is a shame as the actors seem to be trying their best to spark some excitement in the script.To avoid spoiling the end I will just add it needs to be seen to be believed, in fact it may even need more than that. There are much better versions of this book, in fact I think all of them are, even Kenneth More will be turning in his grave never mind Robert Donat!

This was an hour and a half of my life I'm never going to get back. The first thrill-free version of The 39 Steps. No hanging from Big Ben, no daring escape on the Forth Bridge (give it credit he does dangle from a 12 foot fire escape down a London back alley for a bit), no tense scene with the Memory Man, and no sparkling dialogue. Instead we get something that is so clod-hoppingly right on I'm convinced it must have been written by Harriet Harman under a pseudonym. Hannay switches from resourceful well-intentioned everyman to sexist buffoon to quavering wimp to suit the whims of the scriptwriter as his suffragette sidekick performs all the heroics. A lame rip-off of the crop duster sequence from North By Northwest demonstrates the level of imagination on offer. The scenery was quite nice.

It is perhaps harsh to criticise an adaption of John Buchan's novel for having too many coincidences. After all, in the original book, Hannay flees to Scotland to hide from the police and just happens to end up in a cottage belonging to one of the enemy. It may also be a little unfair to compare the different film versions for each interpretation should be allowed to speak for itself.

I have no problem accepting the introduction of a love interest that isn't in the original story. I can also turn a blind eye to the historical anachronisms. It is said that the aeroplane that chases Hannay in this film version (a Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a) is using a firing mechanism that wasn't introduced until 1917. But, I have more trouble with glaring holes in the plot. If you were a spy in Scotland and wanted to remain inconspicuous would you have an aeroplane with any kind of machine gun attached sitting outside your castle?

More to the point, we discover towards the end of the film that Victoria works for the secret service and Hannay is told that she was sent to "cover his back". It is odd then that they first meet when she is on the way to a political rally with her brother and Hannay rolls down the hillside landing in the road in front of her car. At this point she is meant to know who he is and it would have been reasonable for her to ask if he was OK and could she offer him a lift to the next town or to her brother's house. Instead, she asks if he is the Liberal spokesman! Bizarre. We are being asked to accept that in order to 'cover his back' she takes him to a political rally where he will have to pretend to be someone he isn't and will be delayed whilst those she is meant to be protecting him from have every opportunity to catch up. In the 1935 and '59 films the political meeting and the talk at the girls' school were much more convincingly introduced.

When they return to recover the hidden notebook it should not have been beyond the wit of someone working for the secret service bureau to suggest they search around for the notebook and for Victoria to then find it without revealing that she had picked his pocket. A particular skill of Victoria's that passes without any further comment! However, as the film tells it, Hannay realises that this means Victoria already knew that he was telling the truth. Instead of following this up the script says the argument can wait until they get to the inn where, of course, the argument never happens.

Rather than papering over holes in the plot the script should have spent more time avoiding putting holes there in the first place. Later when Hannay arranges a private meeting with Sir George there seems to be no convincing reason why it has to happen in some darkened chapel. 'All very hush, hush', as Sir George says. When asked how he knew Sir George wouldn't turn up with the police Hannay responds, "I didn't." Given what has happened to him and given that he believes national security is at risk this is extraordinary. At this stage there is no reason for Hannay to doubt Victoria's loyalty and they have been discussing the codebook together so there should be no reason to exclude Victoria from this meeting. All the script can do is to have Hannay say to Harry that he didn't want to get another lecture on universal suffrage and to Sir George that, "If you brought the police I thought she might cause a scene." Whilst we are at it, in this scene why does Sir George reveal what is going to be discussed at the meeting of the National Committee of Defence. "I've risked my life for this country" hardly seems to be a sufficient justification to embark on such blatant exposition for the sake of the audience.

But then the National Committee of Defence doesn't seem to be up to much. In a film like this we might forgive the fact that Hannay easily escapes from the armed soldiers taking him to the cells at Stirling castle but then having miraculously arrived at the correct door he demands, "In the name of King George V open the door." The film has gone to great lengths to tell us how top secret these plans are so it is a little surprising that Hannay is then invited into the room with all the plans still laid out on the table. Even worse, once they have discovered the invisible message from Scudder the senior people in the secret service say to Hannay "We will follow you". Perhaps they already knew how incompetent the soldiers were at Stirling Castle and felt it best to entrust this most important mission to a civilian.

The ending of the film is, of course, risible.

In any film it is important to be able to suspend ones disbelief but there should be enough coherence in what you are given to make that a relatively easy task. Perhaps I would be more forgiving if the there was some on screen chemistry between the two leads but even this was absent.

It isn't that this film doesn't match the three previous versions, it is more that this is just dull and, on its own merits, a rather poor film.

Over nearly a century, John Buchan's novel The 39 Steps and its film versions has become something of a classic of the thriller genre. Famously filmed originally by Alfred Hitchcock, this 2008 BBC TV movie version is the fourth and most recent film version of the novel. But despite three previous film versions, this version still has plenty to offer as a thriller in its own right.

Take its cast for instance. Rupert Penry-Jones makes for an interesting choice for Richard Hannay, the archetypal innocent man on the run. Penry-Jones brings an interesting edge to Hannay in that regard as he makes believable the journey from a bored young man to someone who has the fate of a nation on his shoulders. His youthfulness also helps make him believable in the film's action sequences as well. The result is an interesting take on a familiar character.

Backing up Penry-Jones is a good supporting cast, most of whom are not what they seem. Lydia Leonard is practically perfect casting as the film's heroine Victoria Sinclair thanks both to some good writing and her excellent chemistry with Penry-Jones. There's also good performances from David Haig as Victoria's uncle Sir George, Patrick Malahide as Professor Fisher and Eddie Marsan as Scudder, the man who sets the plot in motion. There's also a host of other minor character's throughout the film who add immensely to the atmosphere of the film such as Roger De Courcey as a ventriloquist who Hannay bumps into for example. As a result, the film is well acted all the way around.

The production values are splendid as well. Of particular mention are the cinematography of James Aspinall, particularly with the washed out look used for the scenes set in the Scottish highlands, and the score from composer Rob Lane which sets just the right mood for the film. Though some have noted that there some anachronisms in the film in the forms of various cars and the particular kind of biplane used in one sequence, if like me you don't know a lot about those things, then the production values work just fine in creating the 1914 setting of the film. What more can you ask of production values then to do that? Which in a way brings up the script by Lizzie Mickery. Mickery's script owes less to the famed 1935 Hitchcock film and a bit more perhaps to the original novel, though it isn't a hundred percent faithful to it either. In a way that's a good thing as the Hitchcock film all ready has one remake following it (made in 1959). In that regard this version feels like a fresh new take at filming the novel. Mickery's script is fast paced (just look at the opening ten minutes of the film for example) with quite a bit of wit and tension. There are some predictable aspects to the film and one will likely be able to spot the traitor some time before Hannay does and the first half hour or so of the film is undermined by a rather odd decision to keep giving Hannay voice over to explain a plot that should all ready by apparent by what the viewer all ready knows. Overall though the script is a good one that shy's away from Hitchcock and sets out to do something different.

Which isn't to say this version doesn't owe something to Hitchcock. The speech hall scene for example echoes that seen in the Hitchcock film, though it is certainly different enough to be seemingly original. The biggest nod to Hitchcock comes in the form of Hannary being chased by a biplane which of course isn't in Hitchcock's The 39 Steps but his later film North By Northwest, but it makes for a thrilling sequence in this film. This version isn't Hitchcock but it pays at least some acknowledgment to his version.

What can be said of this version of The 39 Steps at the end of the day? It is a film with a leading man in top form, a good supporting cast, strong production values (if apparently anachronistic) and a good script that turns a nearly century old story into a fast paced thriller. It might not be Hitchcock's version but it is still a good thriller in its own right and a good film as well.

I was looking forward to this, but it was a big letdown.

It started quite well with the scenes in Hannay's flat, but the chase was full of nonsense. The pursuers were often close on Hannay's heels for no clear reason, and some of the escapes were ludicrous and would have disgraced Enid Blyton's Famous Five -- in particular the escape from the so-called oubliette.

The scene with the biplane firing a machine gun was simply bolted on. (I read that Rupert Penry-Jones insisted on such a scene being included). In the book, more sensibly, it is merely a spotter plane.

The 39 steps themselves were virtually without any significance, and whoever heard of a flight of stairs with the number of steps inscribed at the top in Roman numerals? The obscure ending in which Hannay sees his beloved at the railway station did not help to redeem the weak plot.

On the good side, the acting was good by all concerned, and Penry-Jones seems tailor made for roles of this type.

Well, it touched the right bases and looked the part. Rupes is a traditionally handsome hero. But that's it. For all the tension generated, it might have been directed by the crowd who do Heartbeat. Perhaps they could have had jaunty 1914 hits of the day: "What a lovely bunch of cockernee jellied eels" as Hannay makes his escape from the police.

Buchan's work doesn't take kindly to softening. Much of this recalls Hitchcock's version, only stripped of atmosphere or tension or integrity. Hannay knows the gang in Scotland is a spy ring, unlike in Hitchcock's version, but still makes his way there to expose them singlehandedly and thereby save himself from the police. Yeah, right! Some very silly stuff going on, this is probably as bad as the Kenneth More film. Feminine presence obliged by an annoying suffragette who decides to tag along with Hannay for no obvious reason. Tying in the plot with the real-life assassination of Franz Ferdinand seemed somewhat in poor taste, I found. Hannay being able to decode Scudder's notebook is implausible, though in fairness I think that may have been in Buchan's novel. Lots of waffley exposition early on help sink it too.

Rupes will have done his Bond ambition no good at all with this. He seemed to lack charisma or range in this part.

This fourth version (if you don't include the book) will be enjoyed by those who like this sort of thing.

Intellectual snobs adversely compare it to Hitchcock's film version, which is undoubtedly a classic and contains the sexiest scene ever filmed.

Some have even compared it unfavourably with the second and third versions, which are nowhere near being classics.

Tosh, piffle and rubbish! Pretentious nonsense! Buchan's book was intended as light entertainment - 'an adventure story' - written in the style of the time. It was never 'literature' warranting serious 'lit-crit'. I bet few people under forty have ever read it.

Likewise, Hitchcock's version was intended for fun and is evocative of the thirties.

The BBC version will be enjoyed by today's viewers just as much as the book and the other versions were enjoyed in their time by the same sort of people - but not maybe by some who want to relive what they read or saw 60, 50, 40, ... years ago.

If you want the Hitchcock experience watch Hitchcock! All four (five) are enjoyable today in their own way - don't let the 'pseuds' put you off this one.

Having watched the Powell version when I was growing up (and thoroughly enjoying it), when I saw it was going to be on BBC I jumped at the chance to watch it.

The experience was a mixed one. There were definitely some good moments (the highland scenery, some of the acting, the inclusion of actual historic events), however there were quite a few choices that I found baffling (making Hannay a kind of useless puppet half way into the film, blatantly obvious plot holes, and ending that makes no sense at all). I am going to have to watch the original Hitchcock version now and compare.

Overall a watchable, yet ultimately forgettable film.

Finally, can someone please tell me what the 39 steps refer to in the book? In the 2 versions I have watched so far they could not be further apart.

THE 39 STEPS is one classy movie! There are few who can pull off this mixture of humor, suspense, intrigue, and subterfuge the way the best of the British films can. Lizzie Mickery's screenplay adaptation of John Buchan's novel tosses in a few unexpected ingredients and makes this early 1900s story blossom with suspense, hilarity, derring-do, and wonderful one-liners. Director James Hawes paces the film so that there is never a dull moment in this chase toward staving off Germany's entry into England in 1914. The acting is first rate and the cinematography (abetted by the beauty of Scotland) is sumptuous.

The story is both simple and complex - simple in that it is a case of British gentleman Richard Hannay (Rupert Penry-Jones) falling upon an intruder (a spy who is murdered after passing a secret booklet containing codes regarding German information about meetings and proposed invasions in Richard's hands) who begins his moments of chase and intrigue as he attempts to save Britain from war. Complex as along the way he encounters a suffragette Victoria Sinclair (Lydia Leonard) and her brother Hellory (Patrick Kennedy) and uncle Sir George (David Haig) all of whom play an integral part in the caper of the story. The entire cast of German spies and British counterparts is excellent and the story moves along with sufficient twists and turns (and a touch of romance) until a rather surprise ending.

Part of the joy of these British whodunnits is the elegance of the language and the manner in which the story unfolds - with just enough escapes and frightful incidents balanced by smart dialogue. Rupert Penry-Jones is a first class actor whose reputation should be assured with this film. Highly Recommended for those rainy nights at home...

Grady Harp

I thought I might be driven to writing my first ever film critique in response to a feeling of elation at having just watched a truly inspiring film.

In fact, it's quite the contrary. So appalling was this film that I immediately felt a strong moral obligation to warn others against watching it. Trust me, I know about these things - under no circumstances should anyone be tempted by the film's title nor the superficial charm of its lead character played by Rupert Penry-Jones to believe that this is anything other then complete, utter tosh.

The plot bears the thinnest of resemblances to Buchan's book, the characters are furnished with a 'Terry and June' comic gravity and the running time is 85 minutes too long. Anyone giving this film a rating of more than 1 needs to get out more :)

Over all I found this TV movie an enjoyable, fast paced, man on the run tale with plenty of suspense, mystery, intrigue, tragedy and an enjoyable love story.

If you are a fan of the Hitchcock version, you may also not like this one because it lacks the humour, wit and cleaver dialogue and many of the plot elements he introduced into his film. If you loved the book, you will miss many of the episodic incidents that keep the story interesting to a reader. In some ways this version is closer to the book than Hitchcock's movie, but it also incorporates some of Hitchcock's story changes and then departs even further from the book by updating it, trimming it down and introducing still other new story lines. Of particular note is an interesting, emotional twist to the ending.

If you don't like these changes, one must remember that Hitchcock often took only the basic ideas from a book or story and then made major changes to develop his films. A book is not a movie and what works for a book does not always work in a movie. Hitchcock's deviations from the story in the book were enormous.

There also are a significant number of images borrowed from Hitchcock movies and excellent development of suspense using cutting, moving camera, music and other techniques that are all Hitchcockian. In the love story, there is a kiss, that could have been greatly enhanced if the director had continued using Hitchcock technique and filmed it like the famous kiss in the film TO CATCH A THIEF.

The director did a good overall job especially at building suspense and keeping the fast pace of the first half of the film. The acting is not spectacular but adequate for a TV movie. Certainly the leads pale compared to Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll from the 1935 movie but that may be mainly because of the script. My most serious criticism is that this film lacks humour and witty dialogue and I blame that on the script writer.

I think this movie stacks up reasonably well compared to the 1959 or 1978 versions but lacks luster when compared to the Hitchcock classic of 1935. In conclusion, I must say that I liked it --- particularly the the good overall story, the fast pace and suspense and the interesting plot elements. It does drag a bit after the half way point but that is needed to develop the characters as well as the love story and so the audience can figure out what is going on. Hitchcock would have loved how the director keeps a fast pace, develops and maintains suspense and manipulates the audience emotionally at the end.

• Vic (Rotcev)

After reading some of these reviews, I feel quite lucky that I had neither the Hitchcock film (which I couldn't remember) nor the original book (which I never read) by Buchan against which to compare it. Because taken on its own merit, without these other versions looming in the mind, I found this to be completely enjoyable, stylish and fun. The lead guy, (Robert Penry-Jones) is GORGEOUS and I think all the reviews in which his performance and charm were attacked had to have been written by (straight) men! I found him to perfectly embody that slightly stiff repressed sexuality of the old-fashioned English gentleman, who has a simmering core beneath his mastery of social niceties. The gal (Lydia Leonard) was great too and as a woman, I really appreciated that her personality and intelligence were highlighted over her looks, so the film also had a clever and delightful reversal of typical gender roles that gave me a big chuckle. There were many humorous touches to the film such as a nice nod to Hitchcock by paying homage to a famous scene from a different film, "North by Northwest", by including a chase scene featuring a bi-plane bearing down on our hero as he dashes about trying to dodge bullets from above. This was a really cute addition to "The 39 Steps" because of course "North by Northwest" has a similar plot; it is also a tale of a man being mixed up with/mistaken for a government agent and has numerous exciting pursuit sequences with incredible scenery. In fact, I would argue that "North by Northwest" was probably more of the inspiration for the style of this remake, although the plot details were adapted from "The 39 Steps". I find that the filmmakers therefore made a very interesting choice that is surprisingly post-modern. It exemplifies "inter-textuality" or the shaping of texts meanings by other texts, done in film. The only mainstream filmmaker I can think of who is really doing this is Charlie Kaufman ("Adaptation" "Synechdoche") and his films aren't necessarily always that enjoyable (though I loved "Being John Malkovich"). So I think this was a great success because it was highly enjoyable and didn't push such intellectual ideas; rather it playfully evoked key moments in film history, challenged male/female stereotypes, had a believable and sparky love story with attractive leads, beautiful production values, outdoor scenery, period clothes/cars etcetera (like only the BBC can do), all plugged in to well-known historical events (the Suffragette movement, the murder of Ferdinand), that gave the story authenticity. Real shame about the end therefore. Although the critical comments on this site about the plausibility are mere quibble (for example: "the dead German who couldn't shoot straight when he was conscious" who "kills" Victoria was obviously a double-double agent who was only pretending to be dead and was shooting blanks in a carefully choreographed routine in order to send Victoria back deep under cover and not get distracted by romance.Duh!), such critiques being taken care of I still thought it was just a shitty choice to make because emotional betrayal on that level - I mean letting your exciting new lover (did I mention he is GORGEOUS?) with whom you've just survived a life or death challenge, in no small part thanks to him, swim around in a freezing cold lake in tears for hours looking for your dead body when you are actually safely in the secure underwater secret service pod (or whatever; this was never explained which I also found sloppy) drinking cocoa and brandy - is NOT something easily forgiven, I would think. No matter how patriotic someone is! It would have been way better if, when the cold-hearted bitch turns up to smile enigmatically at him from the doorway of the train station FOUR MONTHS LATER, he had simply flipped her the bird and then walked off in another direction where we see him being joined by some sex-on-legs redhead with a figure like Jessica Rabbit, one of which lower appendages she curls around Hannay's calf, her stiletto dangling off her heel as they lip-lock in a crushing embrace during which he winks at Victoria. Pan to Victoria's crumpled face in the doorway seconds before it's obscured by a passing train. THE END. But apart from the absence of my fantasy ending, it was still a jolly good show! Just did a bit of research and found out the filmmaker was a woman which perhaps explains why she turned some conventions regarding "the hero" on their head. I say well done to Lizzie Mickery.

Not disappointing at all. I heartily enjoyed this reworking of The 39 Steps. The depiction of Hannay's well known terrible predicament and his single minded efforts to extricate himself from such was mounted well enough to furnish me with a riveting 90 minutes. The Photography, script and acting were entirely creditable. Certainly the suspension of disbelief was not maintained throughout. At times narrative expediency was a little disconcerting. But from the outset I detected the filmmaker's agenda of non seriousness. In Hannay's narration in the opening scene he tells us that the talk at his club was in part concerned with: "Hobbs' dismissal for four by Haig at the Oval." He then adds the self-knowing risible annotation: "that's cricket by the way." This sets one up for the not-that-deadly-serious content to follow.

I can imagine this not being to everyone's taste, the 39 Steps is given a somewhat softer makeover, slightly more of a romantic thriller, then a great espionage film. More amiable in tone then the original movie version, but the story holds up as well as ever, and is engaging to this day.

Rupert Penry Jones is an outstanding actor, and worthy of any lead role, he gives a wonderful performance, he is ably matched by the brilliant Lydia Leonard, the pair had true chemistry and bounced off one another beautifully, the car chase and hotel room scenes were fantastic. Great supporting cast, David Haig, Patrick Malahide (when does he not make a brilliant villain?) and off course the mercurial and wonderful Eddie Marsan, who's time alas was too short.

I always enjoy watching this, it's easy viewing, almost amusing at times, but it holds up remarkably against its predecessors.

Great effort, 8/10

The film was very entertaining (loved the homage to Hitchcock) and great to watch.

I not going to write a synopsis but it was enjoyable. I've purchased a DVD and have watched it 5 times.

Each time I've watched it, there is something new I saw: for instance, the heroine, who was driving, left the car running when they ran up the stairs to go back to the castle to search for the 39 Steps :)

Masterpiece Theatre has great stories to offer. Each time the Masterpiece comes on, I have to watch in case it's something really interesting that catches my "fancy". This one did!

The setting is in England first, but moves to Scotland - home of my great grandparents. The scenery is beautiful and looks VERY cold since some of the exterior shots show their breath as the actors talk. I loved the train scenes - especially the ventriloquist and "dummy" who helped the Hero escape the police.

All in all, it's a great trip of story line to whisk a person away from daily trials and mean people.

When the Guthrie Theatre of Minneapolis announced its 2010 dates of live presentations and The 39 Steps was a part, I thought first of Hitchcock and wondered. His 1935 film was immensely entertaining when I first saw it on TV in the '50s or '60s -- Mr. Memory at the Music Hall, the Scotland chases, the room at the inn, and back to the Music Hall with Mr. Memory's explanation. I could hardly wait to see it again, and when I did it had lost something for me. Obviously, with mysteries, that is the case. Nevertheless, I'll always treasure the first experience. Years later I found Buchan's 1915 novel (one of a series using Hannay as the protagonist) at a yard sale and ate it up. As John Huston did with The Maltese Falcon novel, Hitchcock did with The 39 Steps -- followed a great story well told and just translated it to film. Or so I thought. I'd forgotten until finding this under "Questions" about the film: "... the actual 39 steps are different ... Hannay is never handcuffed to a woman...the romantic bit was made up for the movie...". But "both stories are highly episodic.... Buchan ... long discrete chapters ... whereas Hitchcock hurtles abrupt changes...". Well, why not since novels employ the art of high, middle, and low points but film language is the art of high points, mainly. Gotta be that way. Reluctant to watch this TV version, I did so anyway. You have to for comparison sake. I found the two leads, male and female, attractive and effective, and the camera work just as good. I'm still planning to find the book on one of my shelves. And when I do, I'll give it another go. And lay it out for my wife to consider. (Oh, oh. She says I did that the first time, and she has read it.) I remember the book as rather thin in appearance but thick with adventure. A red binding. The Guthrie stage version was a testament to creative stage adaptation. The fast pace was great fun with five (5!) actors doing quick changes for multiple roles but never harming the context. Now I found the book: copyright MCMXV, fewer than 230 5x8 pages.

Watchable and enjoyable enough on its own terms, this version of THE 39 STEPS differs in all of its main details from the Alfred Hitchcock thriller about a man on the run from German spies. Still, it follows the same formula and, since I never read the book, I can't tell whether it's a more faithful version of the novel or not.

RUPERT PENRY-JONES, who reminds me of a bland cross between John Lund and Leslie Howard, has the role of the man who unwittingly gets caught up in some sort of outlandish plot involving spies who are about to trigger an event that will cause WWI. He is soon accompanied on his run by a woman (LYDIA LEONARD) who refuses to believe he's telling her the truth about running from dangerous assassins who want to get hold of a coded book in his possession and kill him in the process. She becomes a willing participant in his escape plans.

From then on, it's a fast-paced yarn with a twist ending, photographed in gorgeous outdoor settings and nicely acted by the British cast. But it never achieves the menacing quality of the Hitchcock thriller and does not even include the famous magician scene from the earlier piece.

All of the adventures are unbelievably heroic on Jones' part and overly melodramatic to boot. In only one sensitively played indoor scene with the fleeing couple seeking shelter, is there any chemistry between Rupert and his co-star.

Summing up: Well-paced but lacks the tight suspense of the original '30s thriller.

It will not shock anyone to learn that, having watched this 2008 TVM, I'm not proposing that we just burn Hitchcock's version on the basis that we no longer have any need for it. However neither will I add my voice to those queuing up to tell you how awful this film is. The truth may be closer to the latter extreme than the former but this is not a terrible film, just quite an OK one that suffers badly by comparison by how well it has formerly been done. The plot is not completely the same and there are some key changes even if the overall flow is the same but, for some reason the changes that have been made are overwhelmingly negatively impacting. The most famous set pieces are gone and have been replaced by, well, not much. Perhaps they were looking to shake off the shadow of Hitchcock's film you say? Well if that is the case why make room for a clunky North by Northwest reference then?

It is all very solid stuff despite this and it is perhaps good enough to satisfy as a festive piece of easy entertainment thrown to viewers too sleepy or bloated to really cope with much more. However, outside of this home-court advantage the weaknesses are much clearer and the plot does feel too slow and unengaging. It closely follows the original film version but without anywhere near the same impact or sense of thrill or adventure. I never particularly cared about what was happening or was going to happen as it went along – nor indeed felt a lot in the way of urgency or menace. These are key things to deliver but they are lacking and, as a result, so is the film. I do often defend the idea of the BBC licence fee (and continue to do so) but it is hard to see the justification or remaking something without having anything of value to really bring to it – the rights to the original film must be cheaper to get and the difference could be used to make something original or more daring (accepting that it may fail). As it is, this BBC production is an example of them not delivering.

The cast are reasonable and thus fit with the overall film being "OK". Penry-Jones is strapping but bland and his character isn't consistent or believable across the film. Leonard is the same as the narrative changes her but she didn't have me believing it very often. Malahide isn't a good villain. He has the potential for menace but he has nothing about him to convey it and no spark to make him stand out. Marsan is a nice find in a small role early on but is soon out of the picture a required by the film. The direction matches the general production values by being solid and sturdy but never spectacular.

The whole thing is what you hope it isn't going to be – average. It isn't awful and it does provide a base level of entertainment if that is all you are looking for but I imagine that, like me, many viewers will find little of note about it and wonder why they or the BBC bothered.