Os 39 Degraus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.