Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I won't say that this 39 Steps is completely irredeemable, the Scottish scenery is gorgeous and it is sumptuously and atmospherically shot. However, I wasn't at all convinced by the story. Others have said about the minimal resemblance to the book and its inferiority to the 1935 Hitchcock film, and while I am going to judge this version solely on its own terms, I can see people's disappointment. The story here is leaden in pace, is lacking in suspense, the romance is pure overly-sentimental schmaltz and is just not as exciting or as plausible. They even add a scene that looks like it was paying homage or something to the classic crop duster sequence from North By Northwest, but with little of why that scene was so classic in the first place. The rest of the action seemed unexciting and even generic. The script is rather stilted and leaves a lot of characters underwritten. Hannay is not as charming or resourceful as he had potential to be, sometimes he comes across as a buffoon, and the female lead feels like a clichéd femme-fatale sort of character. The acting was also lacking, Rupert Penry-Jones I have always found a conscientious actor who works wonderfully in well written roles and dramas like Spooks or Silk, but here despite his handsome persona, he is wooden in alternative to brooding or charming and does nothing with his lines(no wonder). All in all, a real disappointment, in comparison and on its own merits(the latter I find more of a problem in all honesty). 3/10 Bethany Cox

It was known that Alfred Hitchcock would buy a book or a story and then use as little as a sentence of it and create a whole new scenario for his film. This version of "The 39 Steps" is based on the book, not the Hitchcock movie; therefore, it's different. The stars are Rupert Perry-Jones, Lydia Leonard, Patrick Malahide, and Eddie Marsan.Having seen the Hitchcock film and the play which uses the Hitchcock film, this 39 Steps is interesting but ultimately a downer. Hitchcock made this story his own, and anything else is going to be a disappointment.The acting is good. Rupert Perry-Jones is an attractive lead, but he's not called upon to do very much. He's not Robert Donat, after all. Lydia Leonard is the suffragette Victoria. She's fun but she's not Madeline Carroll. There's not much, if any, suspense to be had - no being handcuffed together, no music hall scene, just a lot of chases through nice scenery.It's worth watching to compare to Hitchcock and appreciate him all the more, but that's about it. I'd call this pleasant rather than exciting or suspenseful. There was one big surprise in a beginning apartment scene - if the film had continued like that, it would have had something.

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.

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.