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 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.

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.

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.