Fresh and Exciting

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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...

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.

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)...

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