You won't be disappointed!

One of my all time favorites.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

The only resemblance between this "re-make" and the 1935 Alfred Hitchcock Original staring Robert Donat is the name. Plot-wise it is more similar to the 1978 version starring Robert Powell - but - there - the similarity ends. There is absolutely no action - no suspense - and - not even a hint of comic relief - but - then again - why would one need comic relief if there is no suspense? The "jokes" are lame and clichéd - with wooden actors going through the motions of speaking their lines. Stay away from this one. I made three separate attempts to watch this - but - each time I gave up after only 15 minutes. If you want to watch an enjoyable film - choose either the 1935 or 1978 versions.

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.

The BBC must be full of clunk-heads to remake a film-school-classic- that-worked into something that is a disjointed series of random plot points full of anachronisms. It was painful to watch this, even though the acting is very good and the scenery and sets are exquisite. Hannay, a bored ex-pat mining engineer, too easily jumps into the role of a heroic swashbuckler saving the country with very flimsy motivation. The rest of the plot, equally severely disjointed, is an homage to a great film where things DID work organically.Here are a few problems with the script. The plane that shoots through the propellers wasn't invented until two years after WWI began. Airplanes in 1914 weren't even equipped with guns of any kind, the pilots shot with pistols. Any self-respecting writer would have checked that with a little cross-town trip to the Imperial War Museum. Maybe the director put it in the film against objections. Doofus! When Hannay runs across the moors and tumbles on the ground in front of the lady's car, why does she jump out and assume his name and that he's the liberal MP from London? This isn't a comedy but that scene makes it one. Was she expecting to meet an MP cowering in the moors rolling in crap? Yes, very well done.The sexual innuendo worked very well in the original film because it was germane to the era. Handcuffed together and sharing a bedroom was a bit of juicy no-no in 1935. Showing a bit of stocking here and there was racy for the time. In this film, they decided to modernize the love affair but it doesn't work because the writer through confusion or a series of script meetings with executives forgot that we were trying to portray that era, not the current one.The writer cannot take any credit for a job well done here because he borrowed from something that already worked and meddled. Is that thunder I hear or Hitchcock's spirit growling in the wind? Hey BBC execs, why not re-make Gone With the Wind or Casablanca?