The Day of the Triffids (2009) User Reviews

Over processed limp adaptation

[imdb-20078 · 5/10 · 30 December 2009]

What we seem to have here is either an adaptation where too many 'cooks' have been involved such that the plot got lost somewhere, or simple a case of the writers not trying to keep the characters and situations in the realms of believability - Too many characters do daft unnecessary things, or events proposed are just daft or ill thought-out.

I'll try listing some example of moments where you roll your eyes due to silly weak/lazy writing (*spoilers*):-

1) Torrence (Eddie Izzard) waking up in a passenger plane careering thought the air. He doesn't ask a single question about why the plane is in trouble. Instead he just gets into a cubicle and fills it with inflatable vests. Wouldn't we all?

2) The plane then happens to crash land (in all the world) right next to/on top of the lead characters. Wow! What a coincidence!

3) In a crazy moment, equalling Indiana Jones surviving an a-bomb by jumping inside a fridge, Izzard comes out of a plane crashing into a city at X hundred miles an hour, alive, with stupid looking comedy character with a blacked face, clothes in tatters and trouser legs ripped and missing. Were the writers drunk? Could this possibly happen? Really?

4) Jo (the news lady) comes out of the underground (which had collapsed because of Izzards plane), wonders around for a minute or two before bumping into our hero and proclaims, "I thought I was the only one"? What in the 2 minutes you've looked love?

5) Our hero and news lady go to the Triffid farms, and off they go into the middle of the farm for no reason other than to risk their lives.

6) At the triffid farm, where X hundreds/thousands of triffids were, they've escaped and killed everyone there. Not a SINGLE triffid is still there even just by random, or sitting by the person it had killed, feeding - in the end that's why the Triffids kill, they sit there feeding on the corpse for X days or weeks... But no, these new Triffids have other agendas, like getting out of the way of our heroes so they don't appear in the episode too soon.

7) We now have ninja tree climbing triffids attacking from the air and scooping folks up off the ground below. Why were they up in these particular trees? Nesting for the night?

8) Why cart Mason and Coker mile and mile away in the back of a truck to then kill them? What's wrong with a back alley? Other than to allow the Triffids to get involved?

9) When Coker throws a bunch of papers out of the plane he's in, they all fall X hundred feet down through the air and land at the feet of our heroes? Wow! Good shot! Laser guided paper!

10) At Bill Mason's father's house, why do Torrent's men all just stand by the fence waiting to be attacked one by one by the triffids. My guess is simply because the script says for them to do that because they're not longer needed.

11) Furthermore, surely driving out of the triffid surrounded house in a one and a half tonne vehicle might have been a good means to survive the triffids?

In short, the writers just seems to have no grasp on keeping their characters/plot/script anywhere within the bounds of believability, and as such you don't believe in the events, and then worse still, don't care about them. To me it just comes across as lazy unintelligent writing.

Why has Torrence's character been made such a major part of this new adaptation? Is the premise of most of the worlds population being blind and starving to death, society falling apart and an ever increasing number of flesh eating plants not enough for the writers to work with? Seemingly not, as they have to invent a big-baddie for us all to hate, and introduce some daft techno-gizmo for triffid communication and daft wooden voodoo masks!

So, even with its simpler/older production values, the depth and darkness shown in the 1981 BBC adaptation puts this modern day one to shame. Why? Because characters and events are handled in a simple and realistic manner so what is seen on screen rings true. I'm sure the writers of that version would have laughed at the thought of suggesting a scene where someone survived crashing into a city at X hundred miles an hour in a jumbo jet, simply by wrapping themselves up in a dozen inflatable vests. Believable? No! So don't include it!

With a simpler more realistic script this could have been a fabulously gritty and dark survival drama. Instead we have some silly over processed hokum. The 1981 version is still a rewarding watch nearly 30 years. This version will be forgotten in 30 days - 5/10

Decent start, ridiculous ending

[siderite · 6/10 · 15 January 2010]

I started with all possible good intentions: it was a BBC production and I am a fan of Doctor Who and even Torchwood; I have seen the original Day of the Triffids and I liked it (even if I thought the premise to be pretty hard to believe) and I was prepared to enjoy it as a holiday release, with not much substance in it.

This being said, I really enjoyed the start, even if clearly beset with budget issues. I replaced the set in my mind and went on. The premise was a bit ridiculous, but that was in the book, so OK. Then Joely Richardson entered the scene and it all went bad. I have seen her in other movies and she was a decent actress. So either my memory plays tricks on me or the director messed it up. Badly! All her lines were out of place, her behavior like taken from a blond girl joke and her acting appalling. Eddie Izzard did a decent role as the psychopath trying to take over London, the rest of the stars just played average and mostly pointless roles, roles which could have been played by any other actor.

The ending was a chaos of irrational behavior, bad acting, predictability and pointless narration supposed to "open our eyes". The ending really messed things up, both from the standpoint of character development and end feeling.

Bottom line: decent effort, but ultimately a failed one.

Decent update, but too many stupid scenes and flat script lines

[mcguin71 · 6/10 · 24 December 2014]

Having read the book I remember watching the original 1981 series and being quite impressed. It was near enough to a fantastical but still believable post-apocolyptic event that you could forgive the shortcomings and flaws.

I saw this version when first released and recently stumbled across it again and decided it was worth a second viewing. Suffice to say I was both impressed and appalled.

The plot has understandably moved on in the 20+yrs since the first TV adaption, however its gotten itself lost somewhere thanks to the writers inabilty to keep the characters and situations both exciting and likable, but most of all believable - remember these are supposed to represent realistic people albeit in an alternative now/near future.

Instead there are simply too many characters who insist on ignoring even the most blatant self imposed sensibilities and rules and instead do unnecessary, risky, incomprehensible and too often dangerous things that even a person in shock or suffering anxiety and loss would think twice about. And once you add in absurd events, ridiculous coincidences, and ill thought-out consequences it negates so many of the shows positives.

Many others have listed or noted the weaker subplots, scenes, and characterisations so I'll pick out just a few that erked me early on - in fact lets just stick with the main character intros:

1) Torrence (played by a quietly menacing but bored looking and slightly out of place Eddie Izzard) waking up in the plane after the passengers and crew have been blinded and it threatens lose control. He simply reacts like hes seen it all before - there's no panicking or asking questions but instead calmly grabs inflatable vests from under a few seats and wedges himself in the toilet (nowhere near enough to make a difference btw even if the crash itself isn't so violent it kills him). And when the plane crashes in the middle of London not only is he alive but also he's miraculously virtually alone. Now I'll let them off to a point as its required for the plot, except he's barely shaken or injured yet his clothes are tattered, torn and blackened - yet a moment later he's smashing a shop window for a suit just as every plane crash survivor does.

2) In the meantime Bill is recovering from a close call with a Triffid sting - just as per original, only altered to suit. However the manner he received the sting is ridiculous having handed his glasses to a colleague as she is held hostage in a Triffid farm. As its later shown by the bodies that stings to the face in general can kill the question is if Triffids are so dangerous with their stings why only glasses and not a full mask? And with high fences, secure buildings and armed security (in a UK non-military/government farm!) how did the intruded get so far in the first place?

3) Our heroine Jo, a news reporter, comes out of the underground having miraculously been saved her sight my being ordered to change location by produced. This I'll accept as luck, however the aforementioned plane crash happnes right above her head yet she appears to be the only survivor from the underground, which is doubly unfortunate considering any others would be equally 'lucky' to still retain their sight. She doesn't even seem to look around other than at her apparently dead cameraman (who she does nothing more than glance at). Surely as an outdoor reporter she would be a little more observant even if shook up - obviously not tho as she soon proclaims "I thought I was the only one" when she bumps in to Bill.

I feel the only character who comes out of his first scene with any credibility is Corker who like the older version remains tough, resolute, caring, but shortsighted - although why he's suddenly an American and a Major and dressed like a WW2 airman seems odd (pandering to the US audience? or just another unnecessary change to the original?)

Its a pity there are so many points to highlight as it could have been so much better. I feel the writers have made a mess keeping the rewrite true to the original but relevant to modern audiences. The characters are forced to stumble over a sometimes terrible script that misses the point on too many occasions, and on more than one is simply absurd. The altered plot is lazy and at times unwiedly. Compared to the almost 'scripted reality' feel of the original this is written and produced as a more dramatic affair but comes over as far less believable even taking in to account the SciFi genre.

Just a couple more quickies:

Updated Triffids. More menacing but rather more unreal than those of old.

Also Terrance. Whilst Izzrad is suitably menacing the actual character feels wrong and its not only his entrance but also his quick rise to major player status that has changed.

To sign off there is that one last biggie that isn't just annoying but downright stupid - and I mean worse than the tree climbing Triffids - those awful Tribal Masks and the idea that a little Triffid 'blood' will suddenly make you safe from attack!!! ... Whilst i find the remake fine I still find the original with its older, simpler style more enjoyable. It just seemed to capture the post-apoas well yet in a far less in-your-face manner.

Will there be another version made sometime in the future. I doubt it, at least not for a good while, but if so I sincerely hope it's far more like 1981 that 2009...

A Wasted Opportunity

[jsf-15 · 30 December 2009]

With modern production capabilities, this version could have been the most brilliant rendering of Wyndham's book, but it wasn't. The CGId triffids from the leaves upwards were fair depictions of Wyndham's description but the speedily creeping tendrils at the bottom were more reminiscent of the Evil Dead than the Day of the Triffids. The lack of the three stumpy legs on which the plants 'hobble' and (through which they obtained the name Tri-ffed), as well as the hammer appendages through by they communicate with an indecipherable and creepy kind of Morse code (replacing this with typical Bug-Eyed-Monster growls), really wrecked the essence of the title.

What we got was not 'The Day of the Triffids' but 'The Night of the Salivating Foxglove' As normal, the script suffered from 'BBC Disease' - the sacrificing of literary accuracy for 'Social Relevance', which was taken to such extremes that it threw away any relationship with the original story and could only be described as supremely silly.

Eagerly anticipated, a sad anticlimax! better by far is the 1981 production starring John Duttine.

Caution: Heavy Plant

[screenman · 6/10 · 6 January 2010]

John Wyndham's most famous story gets another adaptation along with a contemporary make-over by the BBC this Christmas.

It's a two-part 3-hour effort. The first half introduces us to the plants in an extremely sketchy and unsatisfactory way. Their genesis is never made particularly clear. A number of slightly confusing and needless flashbacks add nothing of value to the story. In a way, the Triffids have an anonymous hint of 'Aliens' about them.

Then; as in the book, most everyone is blinded. Here it seems to be caused by a sudden stupendous solar-flare which lasts only a few minutes (and therefore could only have affected one side of the planet's population, whilst many people like shift-workers and so on would also have been spared). And this is only one in a number of gaping plot holes that Wyndham was smart enough to avoid, but not the BBC. Which is pretty inexcusable when you have the original story to work from. Also, as the initial flare developed over hours, it would have seriously interfered with satellite communication to such an extent that aeroplanes would likely have been grounded.

A lot of money got well spent on some extremely harrowing and comprehensive apocalypse scenes which are centred (inevitably) on London, but are still a refreshing change from New York and LA, as indeed are the British accents. The plants themselves are also modified into something more closely resembling terrestrial octopuses with super-human strength.

An odd choice of casting is that of stand-up comic Eddie Izzard - still sporting his trade-mark black leather trousers - as the villain of the piece. He sets a new standard in preposterous air-crash survival. Basically, he grabs everybody's inflatable survival tunics and shuts himself in the bog with them. Yes. You could almost imagine this as a joke in one of his surreal monologues. Other players are no more than competent.

Other disappointments are the complete abandonment of both Wyndham's excellent original character-driven dialogue which was frank and witty, and also his well-rounded analysis of human foibles and affairs. He was an extremely insightful man. And something else jettisoned is the lonely interlude of the hero walking through an eerily silent and deserted capital, so eloquently described in 'Groping London'.

The book was first released in the more urbane, and 'civilised' 1950's, so the kind of tolerance and compassion of that period is replaced by a vicious, homicidal self-centredness more in keeping with the third millennium and reminiscent of 'Grand Theft Auto'.

By the second part, the special effects and CGI budget must have been exhausted, and what we have left is a fairly hammy and predictable shoot-'em-up in which Leather Eddie gets his come-uppance.

If you haven't read Wydham's almost-timeless novel then this creature-feature may seem like an adequate piece of sci-fi hokum. But with such a story-maestro for inspiration, you hardly need to be a purist to feel a bit disappointed with the BBC's effort.

Not entirely successful

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 13 March 2012]

Two things happen - lights in the sky make most people go blind, and the world is simultaneously overrun by Triffids, intelligent ambulatory carnivorous plants.

Classic stories - of which John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids is one - are almost entitled to revisitation by the TV/movie industry every few years. This particular iteration is a two part, 3 hour co-production between the BBC and sundry others, and features Dougray Scott as major protagonist Bill Masen.

In this instance, Masen actually works with the Triffids, which were harnessed by his father to produce Triffid oil to defeat global warming in an interesting tweak to the original. In a less pleasing tweak, Masen's mother was killed by Triffids when he was a child, which results in frequent and annoying flashbacks of African natives in frightmasks.

Dougray Scott is a dour, unappealing, and frequently unintelligible protagonist. Joely Richardson is a solidly effective leading lady and Eddie Izzard is an entertaining but motiveless baddie.

The scenes of a devastated London are very effective, and the Triffids are nicely realised.

Which leaves the script, in respect of which one can only say "Oh dear." There are digressions which would be fine in an ongoing series, but which have no place in a miniseries like this. There are illogicalities aplenty. There are characters with no apparent motivation, and unbelievable motivations. The Day Of The Triffids is an easy story to make believable. This effort chooses not to.

Maximum disappointment

[rain-46 · 2/10 · 20 February 2013]

Two stars for effort of the cast with such a poor script. Started off OKay with a similar premise as the book, but totally, completely lost-the-plot early on. It turned into a very silly comic-book horror story full of very old and very tired clichés.

The book was never meant to be a 'horror story' about man-eating plants, but about us, about humanity, or a commentary on "Human Nature". For example, even when faced with a common enemy and such destruction, 'Man is still his own worst Enemy', is just one of the many themes explored in the book.

I will stick with the 1981 TV co-production version, which remains the best adaptation of this classic literary science-fiction novel.

In the world of the blind...

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 26 December 2010]

Britain, present day. Oil from a genetically altered walking carnivorous plant saves the world from the harmful use of fossil fuels. We take advantage of them, however, and when the majority of our planet's population is instantly blinded, these Triffids escape and we now have to deal with both them and this sudden(perhaps too much so?) collapse of society. This focuses on Dr. Masen(Scott) who studies them(just as his parents did until his mother died and he lost contact with his father), the reporter Jo(Richardson) and the mysterious and pragmatic Torrence(a nicely menacing Izzard). We see how the military, the religious institutions and regular people react to this turn of events, and how some sighted are willing to give up everything to save those who are not, while others frown upon that. I have not read the book, nor watched another version of this... I hear that it is smarter than this lets it be. This does still comment on things and have compelling themes, such as cynicism, balance with nature and naiveté. It takes off right away and keeps to a good pace, and is consistently interesting and entertaining. The acting and the cast are great. FX are marvelous. The production values are very nice, it's filmed well with effective use of hand-held camera and sharply cut. There is tension and suspense, and the chaos is convincingly rendered. One complaint I hear that I can understand(I get that this is also not the same as the original, but I don't know what the changes are) is that it is too flashy, too Hollywood. British apocalypse fiction is more about the day after than the event, unlike the American ones. And this is listed as action(among other genres), and it really shouldn't be. The decision was undoubtedly because it's easier to sell, and it's unfortunate. Still, if this sounds appealing to you, the time investment of three hours may feel worth it. It does to me. There is a bit of bloody violence and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to those looking for a "end of the world" story that has you thinking somewhat. 7/10

BBC stinker should be left on the compost heap

[jeremy corbett UK · 1/10 · 4 January 2010]

Truly atrocious adaptation of John Wyndham's killer plant and the end-of-civilised-society-as-we-know-it story.

Ah, the BBC.. where has it all gone wrong? Seduced by their generally well-received rebooting of 'Doctor Who', the commissioning geniuses over at Broadcasting House seem to have it in their heads that we lap up this kind of nonsense, but cynically time it to air when most of us are bloated and catatonic with booze and calories (i.e. Christmas Day). I can't be alone in resenting this kind of script-writing 101 for the terminally thick, how did it ever get commissioned? As each tinker-toy contrivance clunked into place, the so-called 'story arc' nose-dived into a preposterous mess and sank there. Dramatically this was as threadbare and as implausible and as daft as they come. Those poor misunderstood Triffids ought to sue for defamation as this 'reimagining' is so totally wide of the mark, it almost defies serious critique. Avoid.

Flawed but enjoyable adaptation

[Tweekums · 6/10 · 30 December 2009]

Before watching this it is best to put the book and previous adaptations out of your mind or you will be frustrated by the inconsistencies. Even if you have never heard of The Day of the Triffids before there will be several times during the programme where it will hard to suspend disbelief; for example I don't think it is possible to survive a plane crashing into a city by hiding in the toilet with a few life vests.

Set in the not to distant future the problems of global warming has been solved by replacing fossil fuels with oil extracted from triffids, a strange plant discovered in central Africa which not only feeds on meat but is able to move on its own. They are farmed in secure buildings where the males are segregated to prevent uncontrolled pollination. All is going well until too things occur, first one of the farms is infiltrated by a man determined to free the triffids during his capture triffid expert Bill Mason is wounded and has to go to hospital for eye surgery. While he is recovering the second event occurs; a solar flare that causes blindness in everybody who observes it. When Bill wakes up and takes off his bandages he finds that he is one of the few people that can still see, others include reporter Jo Playton who was in the Underground when the flare occurred and Torrence, the man on the plane who was sleeping at the time.

With most people blind and the escaped Triffids advancing on London Bill and Jo plan to head out of the city to Bill's father's house in the country where they think they may be able to use some of his research to find a way to combat the triffids. Unfortunately they are prevented from doing this by Torrence who, along with American Major Coker, has some how taken control of London.

The actors did a good enough job with the material and I thought using the triffids as a solution to global warming was a decent updating but wasn't so keen on other things such as when Torrence acquired a pistol from a policeman; there was no explanation as to why an ordinary policeman would be armed a later on when Bill and Jo meet a couple of young armed girls there is no explanation as to how they got their hands on a submachine gun of a type which hasn't been used by the military in twenty years. Despite these flaws I enjoyed this version of the story well enough.

Dreadful adaptation

[oepgzsmqxb9 · 1/10 · 2 January 2010]

How can such an amazing story be ruined? The writer of this version seems to know well how to achieve this - with ease.

I found myself on the side of the triffids wishing the main characters would just become fertiliser. Hard to watch it to the end in fact am writing this whilst trying to do so. This is the third version I've seen and rubbish compared to the other two. No problem with them making an updated version but they've changed it throughout for the sake of changing it and made it thoroughly dull. Why have a character to blame for releasing the triffids? why have someone survive a plane crash? why do the plants have to have ridiculous roots that grab things? Is this meant to make it more exciting?

Avoid this and watch the 1981 version instead.

NAUGHTY EDDIE

[lopezpatricia-06139 · 8/10 · 28 September 2019]

This is the first time I've seen Eddie izzard in anything serious and I don't like him playing a bad guy lol. You have to approach this film with a "tongue in cheek " attitude and you'll be fine. As the triffids are a wee bit silly. I enjoyed it. My mother did not.

Not a bad adaption...

[phoenixyk1 · 7/10 · 2 June 2010]

Many of the reviews have already talked about lazy direction and glaring mistakes... IE: Joley Richardsons Character meeting the other heroes and proclaiming "I thought I was the only one" within 2 minutes of the shows big event... And yeah! Thats a fair pick up...

...But realistically, would you really have sat there for 4 hours to watch the two main characters scramble about trying to find another person who could see among a world full of the blind? Of Course you wouldn't! So we have "Artistic License". Eddie Izzard surviving the plane crash... About as real as Katie Price's Boobs... But hey! Its menat to be TV!!! There is room for a bit of "No Way" Stuff...

The show has some good moments of tension - though it does bear heavy on the "Eco Friendly" line for a while. And where the original story had the Triffids drop from space, here they are natives to Zaire where our capitalist society messes with them and so the film acts as a warning against GM as well... That for me was a spoil point - I am an eco warrior but even I get sick of it being rammed down peoples throats! Do not be fooled by a big name cast list either - Many of the characters are indeed very throw away.

As for the end... If you have read the original books, heard the Radio Play or seen the original series, the end will not really be much of a surprise...

Ignore the very Hollywood reviews, and watch with a typically open minded attitude. Over all the film is a reasonable adaption and well worth a watch. Some good action moments even if the Triffids are obviously rubbery (Adds to the shows Charm for me!) An Excellent watch if a little Flawed... But so was Avatar and many Holloywood Winners so be sensible and lok at it for what it is.

NB: IF I hear one more person moan about Eddie Izzards Character preserving his own wretched life instead of asking what was going on - I WILL SCREAM! We do not know what we would do if we found out we had mere minutes before death... So stop being bloody pedantic!

The extent of dumbing down

[kali-haircut · 1/10 · 12 April 2010]

The people who made this adaptation assumed the following:

That the average British punter watching this is so thick, that if you cracked open his or her skull with a claw hammer, ate their brain, and crapped it back into their head their IQ would be increased billions of times. Take this piece of script for example:

"The Triffids have escaped!" "What are the Triffids?" "They are bad and they escaped!" "The Triffids ESCAPED!?" "YES The Triffids ESCAPED!" "TRIFFIDS ESCAPED!" "TRIFFIDS ESCAPED!" "That means the Triffids have got out!" "Yes, the Triffids have got out. The Triffids are BAD, and now they've GOT OUT!"

Of course, I can't quite convey it as stupidly in writing. Dumbing down doesn't begin to describe the depth and magnitude of this level of cultural ruin. The TV adaptation of the early 80s was infinitely better in every way. Not just the script and direction. Even the camera work, the special effects, were vastly better. Our only hope is to cull those in our population who think this sort of guff is worth the license fee, and bring back the death penalty specifically for the sort of muff-botherers who make this drivel. Scrap the BBC if it can make excrement like this, sacrificing Radio 4 may be hard, but it would be worth it so that this sort of thing would no longer come into the world. We need to see the scriptwriters, directors, producers and funders publicly tortured and executed on TV instead, it would be a great moral improvement on this level of depravity.

Dumbed down, dull star

[pawebster · 31 December 2009]

All that highly paid 'talent' at the BBC (the people who would be instantly head-hunted away to other broadcasters)! Why couldn't some committee of them have got together and spotted that they were spending millions on trash? The story is reduced to the level of the Sarah Jane Adventures on CBBC (which are good in their place). The goodies are very good, and the baddie is totally evil and comes to a really sticky end.

There is little logic to the whole thing. There are wild coincidences - everyone keeps meeting up - and ridiculous last-second escapes, sometimes after characters put themselves in the way of the Triffids for no compelling reason. These only eat easily disposable characters.

The characterisations are also weak. Dougray Scott gives one of those proverbial 'phoned in' performances. Any actor could have done it, most of them better. Joely Richardson tries her best, but even she is overfaced when the script suddenly demands that she become an instant step-mother.

See the old John Duttine version. Read the book.

Good In Parts, Bad In Others

[philaulman · 7/10 · 20 February 2012]

I thought this adaptation was in large, good. I was only 5 when the original was on TV, so couldn't remember much about the story, save the giant man-eating plants and some blind people.

I thought the actors did the best they could with a less-than-brilliant script. Dougray Scott was good as the main protagonist as was Eddie Izzard in his antagonist role.

The real surprise in this version though was Joely Richardson. Although a talented actress, she must have been suffering an off-day, as her acting was dreadful. Could've been the script, but then again, most of the other actors managed okay. Top marks for the BBC though for managing to secure Brian Cox and "A Redgrave".

All in all, good fun but with a few weak bits.

An enjoyable piece of hokum

[k-thomas · 7/10 · 27 February 2010]

I have read the other reviews about this movie and find them a bit harsh. I agree there are a lot of faults, but you must realize that it is science fiction. In the book the triffids were a scientific experiment and in the original movie, they were spores from a meteorite shower. What i liked most was the makers put an idea of their own and turned it into a movie, such as the fact the triffids were used for their oil. You must remember in H.G.Wells The time Machine, there is no mention of the two world wars as the book was written in the late 19th century, so the movie makers put some ideas of their own. For example in the remake they put a story line about the moon breaking. Getting back to Day Of The Triffids. Yes you had a villain called Torrence. Well that story line has been used in several science fiction stories such as the android in Alien or Dr Smith in Lost In Space. I thought the special effects were very good and considering the amount of trash that is on television these days it was a welcome piece of light entertainment. Also having two very good established actors as Vannessa Redgrave and Brian Cox appearing in it was also a nice touch. My opinion of their performances was they put their usual 100 percent efforts into their relatively small roles, which shows how professional they are and it inspired some of the younger members of the cast. No, i must say it might not go down as a classic and win lots of awards, but i sat and watched the full three hours of this movie and enjoyed it very much. Kevin Thomas.

Awful and unwanted adaptation of a classic sci-fi novel

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 5 June 2016]

Another day, another remake – although this one's strictly a new adaptation of the classic John Wyndham novel, which was already filmed once back in the 1960s and made into a miniseries by the BBC in the 1980s. This one's a two-part TV film shown by the BBC at Christmas 2009. I love the novel, so I was looking forward to watching this and hoping against hope that they didn't ruin it.

They did. DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS is another example of style over substance, a film where Wyndham's thoughtful prose is tossed aside in favour of people running around with machine guns. It's heavily indebted to 28 DAYS LATER, borrowing many plot points, while at the same time having that glossy look shared by all major BBC drama these days. The Triffids themselves are CGI creations and to be fair the CGI isn't too bad – it's the script that sucks.

Never have I seen a film so chock-full of plot holes – it's as if the writer doesn't give a damn, desperate to throw in as much senseless action as possible. As a result, the film becomes repetitive and boring. Here are a few questions I asked myself while watching:

If the lights in the sky were a brief phenomenon – unlike in the book – where are all the people who were asleep/on the Underground who wouldn't have been blinded?

Why does every character – including kids in a village – have access to a machine gun?

What is up with the stupid tribal mask solution that makes no sense whatsoever (or should that be nonsense)?

How did Susan follow Bill when he went to trap the male Triffid – are we supposed to believe that she hid in the back of the jeep without him noticing?

How did Susan get back in the heavily-guarded room after planting the audio device at the climax (maybe she has Harry Potter's invisibility cloak)?

How many times are we to be reminded of this film's environmentally-conscious leanings?

How unlikely is it that Jo just happens to be picked up by Bill's dad in his jeep?

Why did the screenwriter focus on familiar human drama instead of the actual Triffid story?

All these flaws and plot holes combine to make a thoroughly ridiculous movie. The cast is also a mixed bag – Dougray Scott and Joely Richardson are fine as the heroic twosome, but some of the supporting actors are really awful – especially Eddie Izzard's bad guy, who seems to be trying to imitate Gary Oldman in LEON. Jason Priestley, once an American heartthrob, now unrecognisable, has a thankless minor part, and Brian Cox's turn amounts to little more than a cameo, lucky him. All in all, this is the worst Triffids adaptation to date.

Not a bad effort

[Beakyboy · 7/10 · 21 January 2019]

I've just watched the two episodes on Amazon and cannot understand the bad reviews others have left. As it goes it is a pretty good low-budget version of the book.

Some of the acting is as vegetative as the Triffids but in general the films hang together well. The ending is a little abrupt and doesn't have the strength of the BBC radio plays thet went into a sequel to Wyndham's original story. Special effects made with lighting, smoke and camera angles, work better than many of the 'spectacular' but hackneyed Hollywood cgi versions.

Dreadful mockery.

[alla0015 · 1/10 · 16 January 2012]

This has very little to do with the book written by John Wyndham. This movie/show, whatever, is a total and unparalleled piece of garbage. Watching it would have made John Wyndham turn in his grave. This book deserves a show of "Survivors" quality.

The makers of this version took a great classic, removed all that made this book great and substituted it with their version of pseudo science that makes no sense. The book is a psychological drama of the world gone blind. The triffids (that have nothing in common with triffids portrayed in this movie) and mysterious plague are additional elements that complicate the situation.

This movie/show makes it all about triffids and their "biology". As a biologist, I can only say that whoever wrote this part had no clue what they were talking about. This so called "biology" of triffids is on par with that of the "Alien" (when they make an incision of the alien, "blood" burns through several floors of the spaceship, yet the scalpel is undamaged)...

Underrated "B" Sci-Fi for a Rainy Afternoon

[mortwerks · 7/10 · 9 February 2023]

I enjoyed this miniseries very much and think many of the reviews have judged this production a bit too harshly. After all, we're not talking about a Kubrick or Scorsese opus here. It's not intended to be "Gone With the Wind" or "Battleship Potemkin". It's just an updated "Monster Movie" (as we used to call them when I was a kid). The writing and acting are reasonably adequate, and the production qualities are a refreshing update from previous film versions of Wyndham's great book. While it seems to have been made targeting pre-adolescents and certainly isn't a cinematic masterpiece, if you want a modern "B" Sci-Fi movie to watch on a rainy afternoon, you can find many far worse than this.

Did Anyone On The Production Ever Read The Book

[Theo Robertson · 3/10 · 5 January 2010]

Hey DOCTOR WHO has changed the face of British television . Not long ago BBC executives would have cut their own throats rather than commission science fiction . They commission Doctor Who probably as a one off series , find the public have fallen in love with the show and can't get enough of science fiction drama so start making it a staple diet of their schedules . Next up following the success of TORCHWOOD is an adaptation of John Wyndham's DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS one of the great sci-fi novels of the 20th century . Having enjoyed the 1981 BBC version I was looking forward to this big budget remake though I did have reservations that this might be dumbed down to a mainstream audience

When I say " dumbed down " what I mean is that DOTT isn't really a sci-fi horror story that DOCTOR WHO has a reputation for . The story revolves around mankind being blinded by a meteor shower and Bill Masen going through the narrative finding flawed attempts by different communes to keep the human race going and rebuilding civilisation from scratch . The Triffids aren't really what the story is about . The novel is rather slow moving but this is compensated by its intelligent premise and its brooding atmosphere . it is quite rightly a highly regarded novel and has been the inspiration for 28 DAYS LATER and both versions of the BBC's SURVIVORS

Unfortunately my fears were realised very quickly . Torrance is asleep on a plane , awakes after everyone else has been blinded but without a word realises what has happened and surrounds himself with life jackets in the plane toilet . Perhaps he's got supernatural powers of deduction , but more likely Patrick Harbinson has written this original scene badly . Director Nick Copus helps make it even more incredible when we see Torrance stagger from the plane wreckage . You know one of these scenes from The Road Runner cartoon where Wile E Coyote gets blown up ? Well that's what the survivor of the plane crash looks like . I wish directors wouldn't substitute spectacle for credibility

As for the Triffids themselves they're much more central to the plot in this version , as much as part of the story as a monster from DOCTOR WHO is central to that show . The only thing is they're kept very much in the shadows . It really is bizarre when we get Masen describing their threat only for them to appear off screen or seen very fleetingly from a distance . Since they're CGI creations one can't help thinking there's been some sort of FX failure and they've ended up looking terribly unconvincing so at the last minute Copus has reshot the scene

Apparently this version cost $15 million to produce and looking at the big names in the cast much of this went on appearance fees . Cox and Redgrave don't appear in the opening episode while Bremner is quickly killed off . Dougray Scott is actually quite terrible . True I can imagine hetrosexual women and gay men in the audience having heart attacks every time he's on screen but his " Hey ain't I a bit of hunk and watch as I give a smouldering look " expression ie his only expression gets very tiresome especially since Masen is a basic everyman character in the novel . In fact Scott comes over as so vain I kept expecting him to lament that there's very few women who can't gaze upon him anymore " That's worse than getting eaten by a Triffid girls "

Having said that Dougray is Daniel Day Lewis in comparison with Eddie Izzard . Who thought it was a good idea to cast a transvestite comedian in a dramatic role ? It's made even worse that much of the story revolves around Torrance's villain . I've never liked the guy and know him mostly as one of the world's most unfunny comedians and I genuinely think he must have been on drugs whilst acting his part . There's no gravatis to Torrance , no presence and no conviction . Really maybe the BBC should have cloned Izzard and made him play the Triffids and let a tree play Torrance . It'd definitely be an improvement

Part Two entirely goes its own way adding its own characters and subplots while forgetting the main subplot of the novel featuring a blinded population is entirely ignored . It's like watching a substandard RTD scripted episode of DOCTOR WHO . There's a due ex ma china plot twist that makes no sense while Torrance has the worst final line demise in television history . When all is said and done even the 1962 film version has its better points than this mega million dollar mega flop

I like it,I don't understand the hate towards this version.

[ib011f9545i · 8/10 · 24 August 2020]

I like the 1981 BBC version,I don't much like the film version. Watching this again I am impressed,better than I recall. Great cast,Scott is a convincing hero but his career has not made much progress recently. Joely Richardson is very good in this. Eddie Izzard a convincing baddie. One non IMDB reviewer describes this production as epic,I agree,big budget,looks great,even the small parts well acted. It does not make the mistake of just being set in London. gives this a shot if you have never seen it,you might love it.

I'd stick to meat, if I were you

[smellthecult-com-1 · 6/10 · 18 January 2010]

As timeless stories go, this one is right up there.

When a genetically engineered strain of killer vegetation, Triffids, take advantage of a human population blighted by mass blindness caused by the sight of a comet in the sky, only a handful of sighted survivors remain. Forced to choose between their own continued survival and the plight of the blinded, we follow Bill Mason and Jo Payton as they do battle with both the deadly flora and the cancer within, humanities need for dominance.

Whilst the story at the heart is expectedly excellent, the embellishments to suit the modern audience don't quite manage to capture the imagination. There are some bright spots, though. The Triffids themselves are very effectively realised, never seeming silly in any way, a genuine peril in this world of genital bombers and rapidly diminishing oil supplies. Eddie Izzard as the demented, power mad Torrence is the star turn, and Joely Richardson's Jo is decent enough, though the characterisation of Mason here comes across as nothing short of bland.

Whilst never reaching the heights of creepiness the early 80's series managed, this is nevertheless a competent, if highly mainstream slice of sci-fi, apocalyptic guff.

I enjoyed it, but I doubt I'll be watching it again any time soon.

WTF

[ozwillb · 3/10 · 8 June 2021]

Great book, there have been a couple of adaptations over the years, which were great, true to the text, but suffered from lack of budget. This appears to have the budget, but strangely starts off ok, but gets worser and worser! My bad grammar is on purpose. They should have let the triffids eat them after the first forty minutes of episode one!!