The 39 Steps (2008)

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Absolute drivel. The only resemblance between this rubbish and the book or the early movie is the name. Rubbish.They have lost all the mystery of the "39 steps".Right from the beginning it is leaves the John Buchan story. There is no interplay between Scudder and Hannay over a number of days. Just murder within minutes.Where did the girl come from. Holllywoid claptrap.Where is all the drama of the different chases???It wasn't the Archduke Ferdinand hat was assassinated in the story. It was someone from Turkey who was murdered in London.!I cannot believe that they tried to call this 39 Steps!,,

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 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.

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.