Paul Evans
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
barbie6982003
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.
eastbergholt2002
I enjoyed this version of 39 Steps. The story is a lot different from Hitchcock's 1935 film and the recent stage version. I saw the play on Broadway and it was very funny, almost a spoof of the film. This TV version plays it straight. Rupert Penry-Jones is excellent as Hannay and Lydia Leonard does a good job as his feisty love interest. Neither Penry-Jones nor Leonard has the screen charisma of Robert Donat or Madeleine Carroll, the leads in Hitchock's 1935 film, but they are likable and convincing.Every version of the 39 Steps is different. The only consistent character is Hannay. However, in the book he is a Scot who lives in South Africa, in Hitchock's film he was Canadian and in this film he's English. The heroines all have different names and occupations.Unlike in Hithcock's film there is no Mr. Memory and the spies this time are Germans. The original film was one of the first "innocent man on the run" stories and Hitchcock had Hannay escaping to Scotland to avoid the police and foreign spies. He started a genre which became much loved by Hollywood. This film is not really a thriller because Leonard is a spy working for British intelligence who knows that Hannay is innocent. The Hitchcock version works better because Carroll's character is an innocent bystander who initially believes Hannay is a murderer. Hithcock liked his heroines to be beautiful and Carroll definitely added some sexual interest. Carroll was one of the first stunning blonds that Hitchcock employed. BBC heroines have never had that much sex-appeal and because Leonard is less interesting to look at, it becomes harder to believe that Penry-Jones could become so infatuated so quickly. The main disappointment was the ending which was daft and something of a letdown. But, Scotland looks great, particularly the houses and the scenery. Hithcock's film was a classic and the plot changes in this TV version don't really work. It could also have done with tighter direction, but overall it was entertaining but different. Even though its probably the worst version of the story I have seen, I still found it enjoyable and worth watching.
a-ellisdavies
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.
AD
