The Day of the Triffids

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.

Have not read the book, but I did watch all three adaptations over a 3 day period, one after the other. If you start with this version, with no knowledge of the Triffids, you will probably like this a lot more, however, there are still some rather glaring problems, the biggest is the script. I started with the 1963 version, then the 1981 version, and then this version, so I suppose, chronological by date. I would rank the adaptations this way 1. 1981 Day of the Triffids 2. 1963 Day of the Triffids 3. 2009 Day of the Triffids. From what i can ascertain based on what those who have read the book is that the 1981 version is the most faithful, and I can tell that based on watching all three, it is the only one that deals with some highly philosophical themes. It also takes a slower pace and allows the characters to breath and grow. It also shows the erosion of society, by the blind and the Triffids, a lot more realistically than the other two versions, it is the best version by far, despite it's low budget look and feel, in fact, I feel that actually is part of it's charm and gives it feel more gritty and realistic.

I don't see why people are put off by the 1981's practical effects, they are sparse, and generally well-done. In fact, I feel they are far superior to to this 2009 version, the Triffids in this version are just very blase, they really seem more modeled off the 1963 version, rather than the book(based on what I've read about the book), although they certainly are more menacing than that version. Most of the time, in the 2009 version, the Triffids are shrouded in darkness and hard to see, in fact, I know I might be in the minority here, but I even enjoyed the design from the 1963 version of the plants better....

Maybe it was also their overall portrayal by both the effects and how characters react to them in the 2009 version as well. Though at least they still have a deadly sting, but one thing I found irritating is when asked why Triffids always go for the head, our Triffid expert Masen answers, "I Don't Know".... At least in 1981 version, he answers this in a voice over, voice over is used in the 2009 version as well, and it doesn't give a definitive answer, but at least a hypothesis. I think as someone who is supposed to be an expert on these plants, as in the 2009 expert, he doesn't just work with them, he has dedicated his life to the study of them, for reasons I will not say, he should have a MUCH better answer of that. At least in the 1963 version, Masen does not work with Triffids, he is in the Navy, his ignorance makes more sense there.

As noted above, the biggest weakness to this version is its script. Despite the fact that this one is the same length as the 1981 version, and this version covers a MUCH shorter period of time, you would think there would be more details on the Triffids, there are actually less, more character development, no there is less, and maybe more drawn out details to certain events, but no, that just is not the case. I actually don't mind the change from the meteor shower to a solar event, that is totally fine.

The editing is also very jaunty, and the camera work is too, and this really does not help the story, it uses a quick editing style that distracts very much from the story and characters, and is also used to avoid showing the triffids very much, which I am guessing is due to budget restraints, but I don't understand that since they have some big name actors such as Vanessa Redgrave, Eddie Izzard, Dougary Scott, and Brian Cox, so I don't get it. Their acting is all fine, but the material is very silly. The characters never really rise about either 1 dimensional caricatures are 2 dimensional paper cut outs, even the 1963 version does better in this regard. It is often hard to know why characters act the way they do here, I guess because tje scipt tells them to.

The story also just leaps from one absurd event to the next, and again, the editing is so jumpy, I often had no idea what was going on, and it began to feel like a string of random events thrown together, by the 1 hour mark I was getting pretty bored, which was a problem with the 1963 adaptation as well, however, that one is only 90 minutes...

Really, between the mediocre and jumbled script and the quick editing style, which seems to be used to hide the flaws of the script, and actually, it only makes them more apparent, it makes this movie okay at best. It isn't awful, though the ending is incredibly sillier and, in my opinion, it is tantamount to calling the audience morons, at the same time, the rest of the movie is meh, and it never reaches the greatness it aspires too, it doesn't even come close, but it is mostly watchable.

Why, oh why do people think it is a great idea to remake a hugely successful and gripping novel, and completely screw around with the plot and characters. Nothing in this remake adds to the original, instead it twists it into a laughable and contrived mess. There are plot holes throughout - and god knows where all those automatic machine guns came from in the heart of England.

Heaven knows why writers/producers would take what was a proved winner, as demonstrated in the 1981 BBC series, and entirely rip its heart out. Very, very disappointing.

2/10

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.

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.