The Day of the Triffids

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.

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!!

Injured in an attack at his work place, triffid expert Bill Mason (sp) is in hospital with his eyes bandaged when the solar event of a lifetime occurs across the earth as solar flares create a cosmic firework display for all to see. When he wakes he finds the hospital in chaos as everyone appears to have been struck blind with only those not watching the sky at its peak. Society quickly crumbles as those with sight struggle with the choices inherent in protecting the weak or looking after themselves. However Mason has more immediate concerns as he knows that the triffids, farmed for years for their oil, require strict control and management given their ability to move and their carnivorous diet and that inevitable power failures will release them to look for easy and defenceless food sources.

In the original material the triffids are pretty much in the background of the story as the focus is more on the collapse of society and the retention (or otherwise) of morality that comes with it. The BBC miniseries got closest to it while the b-movie from the 1960's focused more on the escape from the creatures themselves. Although I did expect a bit more in the way of intelligence and horrific moral drama from this three hour film, I was not overly surprised to find that the Christmas BBC blockbuster production took the "action first" route – not surprised but perhaps a little disappointed. This is not in itself a bad thing because I don't see the logic in deriding something simply because it didn't stick to the source material if whatever it does with it actually works well – it is a different time, a different media and a different writer (adapter). Being protective is not a bad thing either, but the reality is somewhere in the middle, not at either extreme.

The problem then because one of whether this version "works" and it must be said that it does work well in specific moments but not as a whole. What this means is that there are moments and sequences that work well if you just view them as standalone moments. Many of the triffid attacks are well done, while there are scattered moments of drama associated with the treatment of the blind and the selection of survivors. These "moments" are not momentary and as a result I did quite enjoy it as I sat in front of it but ultimately I am not watching a series of "reasonably good bits" but rather one drama that has to work over three hours (yes, three). This is the thing you see, it doesn't work that well, mostly due to the focus of the plot combined with the near total lack of internal logic.

The plot has decided that a clear goodie and baddie are required so, although he is never explained and doesn't make a lot of sense, Eddie Izzard's Torrence is the baddie foil to Mason's goodie. As a result, the bigger picture quickly takes a back seat to Torrence's pursuit of Mason and Jo. This gives us the base of a thriller plot but it does rather fold the whole story in on itself and needs good work done to layer it and add more complexity to it. Sadly it doesn't do this. There are some small moment of tragedy and tough decisions early on but mostly it doesn't do this and it certainly doesn't make it part of the total film so much as part of specific moments. The frequent moments of peril keep it distracting but they are not enough on their own to fill the running time or to distract the mind from the many illogical moments or moments of sheer lay writing convenience (constantly ensuring that the main characters manage to find each other to keep the narrative moving). This continues the whole way to a weak ending that does the same thing and is somewhat of a disappointment that brings earlier failings into sharper focus.

The cast are reasonably impressive on paper but not that good in reality. Scott matches the square jaw of Howard Keel with his gruff voice and lack of noticeable range. Richardson is better but is never given the material to work with. Izzard could have been a great villain but sadly nobody has written one for him so his performance is poor and his presence distracting – he does seem to be in a different movie. Priestly has more of a "oh look at him" effect rather than being a good turn, while the presence of Cox, Bremner and Redgrave suggest more have been possible with a better script.

Not a great surprise then to find that a festive television special delivers the b-movie monster thrills but doesn't challenge or engage the brain all that much (although to read the boards here you'd think the makers had exhumed Wyndham and performed terrible acts with his remains). Missed potential and full of irritating jumps in logic and plotting make it nothing more than this and not something to go out of your way to see.

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.

Very few of the actions of any of the characters are credible, and this makes it hard to relate to. Torrence behaves like a personal Nemesis to Jo and Masen. There is no logic to his operation nor why people follow him. The plot proceeds through a series of accidents and stupid or careless mistakes in unlikely situations. Cars in the UK seem scarcer than automatic weapons. No one behaves cautiously, like a survivor. Even triffid experts, scarred by triffid fights, go deliberately into battle against unrestrained triffids without eye protection that was mandatory for them when working with secure captive triffids. Relationships evolve clumsily and implausibly. People in general are more afraid of each other than triffids, spend more energy fighting each other than fighting to survive. This is an attempt to create 'drama' - was the writer not able to get enough drama out of the premise of flesh eating plants conquering the world? Nothing rings true. Watching it becomes a disappointing waste of time. A great shame since the effects and production values are excellent. Another example of where spending a little more time, thought & money on the script would've paid huge dividends. This could've been awesome, but sadly it's a complete turkey.