The Day of the Triffids (2009)

How on earth could the BBC system, that normally delivers high quality, come out with this disaster of a mini-series? There is no synopsis on the IMDb page. Maybe everyone is just too embarrassed to even try writing one. I certainly won't contribute! I did listen carefully to the radio drama from the Norwegian broadcaster NRK, made back in 1969, and that is far more exciting than this TV drama from 2009, even though one should expect the opposite. I haven't found out who has directed or produced this nonsense and I don't even care. And how could such top actors believe in it? They don't seem to be having a good time. The film is so full of logical flaws, bad acting and poor film crafting that it clearly is appropriate for use in film schools as a great example of how not to do it.

One of my personal favorite movies of all times is the cheap and often clumsy 1962 version of "Day of the Triffids". Admittedly it's a flawed and heavily altered version of the acclaimed story, but it made an everlasting impression on me thanks to the unequaled atmosphere of hopelessness (during the first half of the film) in combination with the original nature of mankind's opponent (during the second half of the film). Most of the praise should undeniably go to the novel's author John Wyndham, of course, but there's also that typical apocalyptic atmosphere that only worked effectively in late fifties/early sixties Sci-Fi movies. I haven't read the book yet, but apparently the 1962 film adaptation modified a large number of elements, which is probably why the BBC produced two much more elaborated and faithful adaptations in the form of TV mini-series. I can't speak for the 1981 version, but this newer and supposedly "technologically advanced" 2009 version only made me regret to have wasted three long & precious hours of my life and sparked the desire to re-watch that charming old movie again.Thinking back about my viewing experience now, only one day ago, I already wonder how they even managed to fill three hours of running time, as there's actually very little happening in "Day of the Triffids". Here, the Triffids (a unique species of carnivorous plants) already exist as genetically engineered organisms and their oil is used as a more than welcome alternative fuel resource. Their hunger for flesh is stilled and supervised in humongous laboratories of the Triffoil Corporation, but when solar flares blind the entire world's population, the ravenous vegetables break free and feast themselves on the poor and helpless blind. Speaking of which, the whole "world gone blind" aspect is scandalously neglected in this version. There are really a lot of people who apparently missed the once-in-a-lifetime light spectacle and there are only a few sequences of (implausible) mass hysteria in the center of London. There's also very little Triffids-horror, for that matter, and it seems that the entire film revolves solely on the dire romance between a Triffid milkman and a BBC journalist and one idiot's quest for world domination. Only one sub plot is worth mentioning, in my humble opinion, and it involves a monastery community run by Vanessa Redgrave that the Triffids don't attempt to invade for some mysterious reason. The final half hour is unendurable and nearly impossible to struggle through, as the main couple adopts two siblings and reunites with the man's father who has thought up a cross-pollinating solution. Fake sentiment and family drama is the absolute last thing I'm looking for in a Sci-Fi flick about murderous plants. As a fan of old-fashioned special effects and the power of suggestion, I also certainly cannot recommend watching "Day of the Triffids" for its lackluster CGI effects and pitiable post-apocalyptic landscapes. Please, explore and re-discover old Sci-Fi cinema … or, in my case, take the time to read a good book.

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.

I was disappointed with Day of the Triffids, it wasn't absolutely awful, but disappointing is the best way to describe it. I confess I have not read the book a shameful admission I know, but my dad who saw it with me has, and noted that the second half of the adaptation especially is completely different. I also do feel that it was not the best thing on Christmas television, Cranford Christmas was absolutely exceptional, and in terms of dramas of the year it is a major step down from the unforgettable Occupation which was one of the best dramas I'd seen the BBC produce in years.Okay, so what were the good things? The production values certainly. The special effects were above average making some scenes exhilarating visually to watch, and there was some good scenery particularly at the beginning. Joely Richardson was the redeeming feature of the cast, making the most of a clunky script and doing her best to breathe some life into the proceedings. I thought the first fifteen minutes were good, and the Triffid Attacks were well done.However, everything else disappointed me. The thing is it didn't grip or excite me; the pace was very uneven throughout, some parts were very slow and others were too rushed. The script as I've mentioned before was clunky and underdeveloped, and the plot while truly intriguing was rushed through without giving much thought to detail or explanation. The direction was rather lazy, and there is some wooden acting going on. Dougray Scott could have been so good here in the lead, instead he seems to be phoning in his performance. Eddie Izzard tries his best, but he lacks menace and his presence is sometimes jarring, and Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave are given little to do.In conclusion, had a great idea but some of it didn't work for me. Some good things certainly, but it was disappointing in terms of script and acting, and I can understand why some people who love the book disliked this. Even from having not read the book, I could tell it was underdeveloped. Oh well, can't please everyone I guess. 5/10 Bethany Cox