The Day of the Triffids

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.

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.

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.

Looking at the cast list it should have been great and I am one who does not build up his expectations but I was expecting so much more. Pretty true to the book but it had no surprises. It could have been more exciting but the pace was slow for the most part and the triffids were not scary in the least. These actors are better than the script they were given and I am sure that some regret taking part. Eddie Izzard is an excellent baddie and the cinematography is very good but for me that is all I can say in it's favour. I prefer the 1981 TV series and even the film version has more going for it. Much as I like sci-fi and the book this is not one for my collection.

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!!