Genres

Visitors Review

siderite 2012-05-22 08:37:14

Decent start, ridiculous ending

I started with all possible good intentions: it was a BBC productionand I am a fan of Doctor Who and even Torchwood; I have seen theoriginal Day of the Triffids and I liked it (even if I thought thepremise to be pretty hard to believe) and I was prepared to enjoy it asa holiday release, with not much substance in it.This being said, I really enjoyed the start, even if clearly beset withbudget issues. I replaced the set in my mind and went on. The premisewas a bit ridiculous, but that was in the book, so OK. Then JoelyRichardson entered the scene and it all went bad. I have seen her inother movies and she was a decent actress. So either my memory playstricks on me or the director messed it up. Badly! All her lines wereout of place, her behavior like taken from a blond girl joke and heracting appalling. Eddie Izzard did a decent role as the psychopathtrying to take over London, the rest of the stars just played averageand mostly pointless roles, roles which could have been played by anyother actor.The ending was a chaos of irrational behavior, bad acting,predictability and pointless narration supposed to "open our eyes". Theending really messed things up, both from the standpoint of characterdevelopment and end feeling.Bottom line: decent effort, but ultimately a failed one.

the Toucher 2012-05-21 14:23:28

Top Quality Sci-Fi Drama with creepy people!

Hats of to the BBC for this, I've just watched episode 1 and LOVE IT!This brand new series has the right sort of production value quality todo the concept justice, and does not in anyway seem as cheap as theprevious series from the last century. Sound: excellent! Visuals: excellent! Lighting: excellent! Acting:Excellent! Characters: Excellent (and creepy!!) Dialogue: Excellent!Timing: Excellent! All the other categories that I cannot think of:Excellent!I'm so glad that the BBC has come up with something that beats the USmade high production value dramas like Battlestar or Flash Forward.I will put 5 stars against this series just as soon as I can work outhow to do it on IMDb!

jeremy corbett UK 2012-05-20 03:12:08

BBC stinker should be left on the compost heap

Truly atrocious adaptation of John Wyndham's killer plant and theend-of-civilised-society-as-we-know-it story.Ah, the BBC.. where has it all gone wrong? Seduced by their generallywell-received rebooting of 'Doctor Who', the commissioning geniusesover at Broadcasting House seem to have it in their heads that we lapup this kind of nonsense, but cynically time it to air when most of usare bloated and catatonic with booze and calories (i.e. Christmas Day).I can't be alone in resenting this kind of script-writing 101 for theterminally thick, how did it ever get commissioned? As each tinker-toycontrivance clunked into place, the so-called 'story arc' nose-divedinto a preposterous mess and sank there. Dramatically this was asthreadbare and as implausible and as daft as they come. Those poormisunderstood Triffids ought to sue for defamation as this'reimagining' is so totally wide of the mark, it almost defies seriouscritique. Avoid.

alla0015 2012-05-19 15:30:12

Dreadful mockery.

This has very little to do with the book written by John Wyndham. Thismovie/show, whatever, is a total and unparalleled piece of garbage.Watching it would have made John Wyndham turn in his grave. This bookdeserves a show of "Survivors" quality.The makers of this version took a great classic, removed all that madethis book great and substituted it with their version of pseudo sciencethat makes no sense. The book is a psychological drama of the worldgone blind. The triffids (that have nothing in common with triffidsportrayed in this movie) and mysterious plague are additional elementsthat complicate the situation. This movie/show makes it all about triffids and their "biology". As abiologist, I can only say that whoever wrote this part had no clue whatthey were talking about. This so called "biology" of triffids is on parwith that of the "Alien" (when they make an incision of the alien,"blood" burns through several floors of the spaceship, yet the scalpelis undamaged)...

dianewaterhouse 2012-05-18 18:57:04

not bad, but then again...not very good

There are some absolutely stupid parts in this adaptation which make italmost unwatchable. Other reviews have already gone into this so Iwon't repeat. What doesn't seem to have been given much credit thoughis the acting. All of the actors involved were outstanding with thematerial they had been given. It's remarkable in itself that EddieIzzard could even keep a straight face with some of the scenes/lines hewas given (yes he managed it when walking out of a crashed planecovered in soot without a scratch, at seeing that scene I was laughingand I'm sure he will too when watching it back) I have to say he alwaysseems to play an excellent bad guy! Dougray Scott and Joely Richardsonwere both great, again making the best of a bad script.In short, worth watching only for the brilliant acting

cayates1 2012-05-18 03:51:51

How it stinks

The plus points – clearly better than Dr. Who. A bit better than the'81 BBC series which has not aged well. Production values were OK too.Credible cast.At 0:08:12 Joely Richardson pronounces phenomenon as 'phenomenom'. At0:40:40 her dead dad's eyelid flickers. Why does triffid expert Billnever wear protective head-gear despite it doubtless being in thecompany vehicle? At 0:51:19 they're en route to the flares in aRange-Rover & are then seen pulling-up to meet Torrence in a LandroverDiscovery. The pacing was wrong i.e. rushed. At 6 hours it would have worked muchbetter. The triffid threat would emerge more slowly & there would bemore sighted – submariners, those in military command bunkers & allmanner of windowless control rooms. The real story would be thefeudalistic hierarchy that developed. What we have here is a verystunted treatment coupled with a shoddy execution.It's surprising that after 30 years there were no specialisedanti-triffid weapons( the '81 series featured that) & no sign of flamethrowers. Why all the dry-ice? If it's supposed to be smoke then whydoes no one ever cough? It is of course there to obviate the need forCGI landscapes which HD is very unforgiving of unless serious money isspent. The scene in the warehouse at 1:10:0 is ridiculous. The shutterswere only raised a foot so how were these large plants supposed toenter & then lie in wait? Do they have swipe-cards & keys? Maybe theytext – it's absurd. At 1:24:55 they're portrayed as either hooded monksor Ents & about 30 feet high–the scaling is wrong, unless they'reshape-shifters too. There's no discipline in their portrayal. Triffidswould surely be as likely to target cattle as humans. Episode 2 - the triffid hunt is predictably absurd (even without thesmall child). Why would any triffid hide in such a barren place as ifwaiting for our hero? Welder's goggles – laughable. How can Torrencejust walk into an electrified compound no doubt with motion detectors?How would triffids use 'underground tunnels & sewers'? The writerobviously confuses triffids with zombies & perhaps illegal immigrants.The last 15 minutes are an abomination – an insult in every way.So maybe I'm wrong about the production values.It's all so bad.Why is it that the BBC could do a much better job with 'Threads' in themid '80s than with this now? So much for CGI.

Grann-Bach 2012-05-14 18:26:58

In the world of the blind...

Britain, present day. Oil from a genetically altered walkingcarnivorous plant saves the world from the harmful use of fossil fuels.We take advantage of them, however, and when the majority of ourplanet's population is instantly blinded, these Triffids escape and wenow have to deal with both them and this sudden(perhaps too much so?)collapse of society. This focuses on Dr. Masen(Scott) who studiesthem(just as his parents did until his mother died and he lost contactwith his father), the reporter Jo(Richardson) and the mysterious andpragmatic Torrence(a nicely menacing Izzard). We see how the military,the religious institutions and regular people react to this turn ofevents, and how some sighted are willing to give up everything to savethose who are not, while others frown upon that. I have not read thebook, nor watched another version of this... I hear that it is smarterthan this lets it be. This does still comment on things and havecompelling themes, such as cynicism, balance with nature and naiveté.It takes off right away and keeps to a good pace, and is consistentlyinteresting and entertaining. The acting and the cast are great. FX aremarvelous. The production values are very nice, it's filmed well witheffective use of hand-held camera and sharply cut. There is tension andsuspense, and the chaos is convincingly rendered. One complaint I hearthat I can understand(I get that this is also not the same as theoriginal, but I don't know what the changes are) is that it is tooflashy, too Hollywood. British apocalypse fiction is more about the dayafter than the event, unlike the American ones. And this is listed asaction(among other genres), and it really shouldn't be. The decisionwas undoubtedly because it's easier to sell, and it's unfortunate.Still, if this sounds appealing to you, the time investment of threehours may feel worth it. It does to me. There is a bit of bloodyviolence and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to thoselooking for a "end of the world" story that has you thinking somewhat.7/10

gtbarker 2012-05-14 05:02:52

If you like the same old tired jerky camera and crap nonsense dialogue this one's not for you

..but if you like well made TV that isn't designed purely for the under25s then this could be your kind of thing. Yeah it's not wall to wallcgi action sequences (but how boring has that become anyway?) andthere's no smart alec teenagers spouting trans Atlantic nonsenseexpressions while they show the adults how it's done (again - bigyawn). I have read the novel three times and there have definitely beena number of liberties taken with the original story, but the changesdon't jar and have for once been updates that work. Oh and the finalsin that will upset the goldfishy sheeple.. The downbeat, with just asmidgen of upbeat, ending. Well I for one love an ending that wasn'tproduced in some focus group luvvie big hug session.

2012-05-10 07:29:22

Will Play On American Blu-Ray Players

This review is from: Day of the Triffids [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) I checked this out thoroughly before purchasing. It does indeed play just fine on my blu-ray player even though it codes as B/2 in the advertisement. Not always so with some of the other blu-rays available in Britain but not here. I know Hamburger Hill is strictly Region 2 and don't know if Killing Fields will be also when it comes out in blu-ray in Britain. "Don't Look Now" is also strictly B/2.Now the movie. Wow!! Incredible special effects and story line. I thoroughly enjoyed the original movie even though it was a bit slow moving. Not this one. It will capture you from the first moment and keep you hooked for the entire 3 hours. If your a sci-fi buff, put this one in your collection.

Framescourer 2012-05-10 01:00:30

Pretty awful made-for-holiday TV

Buoyed on by the success of Dr Who and Torchwood, this Christmasspecial adaptation of John Wyndham's dystopian horror uses now-industrystandard computer graphics to finesse an otherwise budget-fetteredshoot. The money went on the stars. This was not a triumph for directorNick Copus whose zombie-blind stagger about the screen in a manner thatmakes the eponymous perambulating plants look believable. They're not.It isn't. This is the insurmountable problem of this miniseries,especially when the 'credible' includes Izzard's Torrence emerging froma plane crash dressed as a chimney sweep.Patrick Harbison does a workmanlike job of updating the drama toproperly reflect our current elephant in the room, i.e.over-consumption and climate change. It's the little details ofdialogue designed to move the drama along that seem unlikely. I'dimagine a younger audience, more immersed in the vernacular of Dr Whoand Torchwood are less likely to be put off. And it's all so serious!I was rather impressed by the big-name sextet ensemble, althoughVanessa Redgrave did more with less than the others. Izzard plays hiswannabe despot with effective irony, in the vein of Alan Rickman'sSheriff of Nottingham. I didn't recognise Priestly (commendation) untilthe second instalment, the point at which his character throws his lotin with moral sentimentality (ugh). If you've seen 28 Days Later, I AmLegend or Children of Men then you've seen a properly funded version ofurban Armageddon towards which the BBC can only tilt. 4/10

zygonleader 2012-05-04 21:27:37

Not Triff-ic

We watched the 1981 version of this first, we'd got both DVD's fairlyclose to each other, so thought it would make an interestingcomparison.The 81 one has slow moments and is 'of it's age' production value wisebut is by far the best adaptation.The 2009 one starts OK keeping roughly to the plot (We'll ignore theplane crash which is a to be honest a bit of a stretch credibilitywise) but by part two it's quite happily wandering around desperatelytrying to find ways to destroy it's self and it manages it!.There's a review above which give's a good description of theholes/stretches of credibility so i'll not here.A wasted opportunity.

Claudio Carvalho 2012-05-04 12:21:00

Lame Screenplay

I started seeing "The Day of the Triffids" with great expectations of agood sci-fi film. The beginning of the story recalls "Blindness" withmost of the population blind. However, differently from José Saramago'snovel, London and the rest of the world do not have a mysteriousoutbreak of blindness but they are affected by a solar storm thatblinds everyone that was looking at the phenomenon. Therefore the storyis too ridiculous from the very beginning, disregarding that part ofthe worldwide population would be sleeping or in places protected bythe sun. How a scum like Torrence could become a leader? The lamedialogs and situations seem to be written by morons or believing thatthe viewers are morons. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "O Dia Final" ("The Final Day")

2012-05-02 18:39:11

How could sci--fi be boring?

This review is from: Day of the Triffids [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) This great novel was turned into a dozy flick. How is it possible to have man-eating walking plants, a plague of blindness and Road Warrior gangs turn into a sleeping pill? This director must have let his granny take over--no offense, granny. And I couldn't get the multi-region disk to play on my new blu-ray. Depended on netflix! The book is a treasure. The BBC? Boring, Boring, Crap.

patmaloney 2012-05-02 03:45:06

Dire

I can understand the writers & the BBC not wanting to just do aspiffier version of the original BBC series.But the 2009 iteration was dire.There's no point blaming the cast, as with the script provided youcould have had a cast of Oscar winners & you'd have had the samedisjointed, incoherent result.Someone must have just taken a set of 'modern' topics & told thewriters to shoehorn as many of them in as possible.There were plenty of gaps in the book that could have expanded on tochange the narrative to one more relevant to the new century ( PostColdwar ) without reducing the original classic book to People VersusPlants, & other People.As it was I just about sat thru the first installment & could only dealwith the first 10 minutes of the 2nd episode.Programming by committee strikes again !

philaulman 2012-05-01 17:58:17

Good In Parts, Bad In Others

I thought this adaptation was in large, good. I was only 5 when theoriginal was on TV, so couldn't remember much about the story, save thegiant man-eating plants and some blind people.I thought the actors did the best they could with a less-than-brilliantscript. Dougray Scott was good as the main protagonist as was EddieIzzard in his antagonist role.The real surprise in this version though was Joely Richardson. Althougha talented actress, she must have been suffering an off-day, as heracting was dreadful. Could've been the script, but then again, most ofthe other actors managed okay. Top marks for the BBC though formanaging to secure Brian Cox and "A Redgrave".All in all, good fun but with a few weak bits.

Tweekums 2012-05-01 04:03:08

Flawed but enjoyable adaptation

Before watching this it is best to put the book and previousadaptations out of your mind or you will be frustrated by theinconsistencies. Even if you have never heard of The Day of theTriffids before there will be several times during the programme whereit will hard to suspend disbelief; for example I don't think it ispossible to survive a plane crashing into a city by hiding in thetoilet with a few life vests.Set in the not to distant future the problems of global warming hasbeen solved by replacing fossil fuels with oil extracted from triffids,a strange plant discovered in central Africa which not only feeds onmeat but is able to move on its own. They are farmed in securebuildings where the males are segregated to prevent uncontrolledpollination. All is going well until too things occur, first one of thefarms is infiltrated by a man determined to free the triffids duringhis capture triffid expert Bill Mason is wounded and has to go tohospital for eye surgery. While he is recovering the second eventoccurs; a solar flare that causes blindness in everybody who observesit. When Bill wakes up and takes off his bandages he finds that he isone of the few people that can still see, others include reporter JoPlayton who was in the Underground when the flare occurred andTorrence, the man on the plane who was sleeping at the time.With most people blind and the escaped Triffids advancing on LondonBill and Jo plan to head out of the city to Bill's father's house inthe country where they think they may be able to use some of hisresearch to find a way to combat the triffids. Unfortunately they areprevented from doing this by Torrence who, along with American MajorCoker, has some how taken control of London.The actors did a good enough job with the material and I thought usingthe triffids as a solution to global warming was a decent updating butwasn't so keen on other things such as when Torrence acquired a pistolfrom a policeman; there was no explanation as to why an ordinarypoliceman would be armed a later on when Bill and Jo meet a couple ofyoung armed girls there is no explanation as to how they got theirhands on a submachine gun of a type which hasn't been used by themilitary in twenty years. Despite these flaws I enjoyed this version ofthe story well enough.

cheesymctaggert 2012-04-29 06:11:20

Decent Remake

I loved the older version of this series but i was a lot younger so iwas scared slightly easier but this still is quite scary it provokesthe things that we were scared of as a child like the dark and theunknown.If a bit far far-fetched the story's is still fairly solid with ithaving a solid cast which perform brilliantly in a low budget TVprogramme the action scenes are directed brilliantly..The only problem is that think they could have made the series a bitlonger because the story is a complex and long one..But other than that a well directed programme with what i hope has aworthy ending of such a good start.9/10

Theo Robertson 2012-04-28 17:43:15

Did Anyone On The Production Ever Read The Book

Hey DOCTOR WHO has changed the face of British television . Not longago BBC executives would have cut their own throats rather thancommission science fiction . They commission Doctor Who probably as aone off series , find the public have fallen in love with the show andcan't get enough of science fiction drama so start making it a staplediet of their schedules . Next up following the success of TORCHWOOD isan adaptation of John Wyndham's DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS one of the greatsci-fi novels of the 20th century . Having enjoyed the 1981 BBC versionI was looking forward to this big budget remake though I did havereservations that this might be dumbed down to a mainstream audience When I say " dumbed down " what I mean is that DOTT isn't really asci-fi horror story that DOCTOR WHO has a reputation for . The storyrevolves around mankind being blinded by a meteor shower and Bill Masengoing through the narrative finding flawed attempts by differentcommunes to keep the human race going and rebuilding civilisation fromscratch . The Triffids aren't really what the story is about . Thenovel is rather slow moving but this is compensated by its intelligentpremise and its brooding atmosphere . it is quite rightly a highlyregarded novel and has been the inspiration for 28 DAYS LATER and bothversions of the BBC's SURVIVORS Unfortunately my fears were realised very quickly . Torrance is asleepon a plane , awakes after everyone else has been blinded but without aword realises what has happened and surrounds himself with life jacketsin the plane toilet . Perhaps he's got supernatural powers of deduction, but more likely Patrick Harbinson has written this original scenebadly . Director Nick Copus helps make it even more incredible when wesee Torrance stagger from the plane wreckage . You know one of thesescenes from The Road Runner cartoon where Wile E Coyote gets blown up ?Well that's what the survivor of the plane crash looks like . I wishdirectors wouldn't substitute spectacle for credibility As for the Triffids themselves they're much more central to the plot inthis version , as much as part of the story as a monster from DOCTORWHO is central to that show . The only thing is they're kept very muchin the shadows . It really is bizarre when we get Masen describingtheir threat only for them to appear off screen or seen very fleetinglyfrom a distance . Since they're CGI creations one can't help thinkingthere's been some sort of FX failure and they've ended up lookingterribly unconvincing so at the last minute Copus has reshot the scene Apparently this version cost $15 million to produce and looking at thebig names in the cast much of this went on appearance fees . Cox andRedgrave don't appear in the opening episode while Bremner is quicklykilled off . Dougray Scott is actually quite terrible . True I canimagine hetrosexual women and gay men in the audience having heartattacks every time he's on screen but his " Hey ain't I a bit of hunkand watch as I give a smouldering look " expression ie his onlyexpression gets very tiresome especially since Masen is a basiceveryman character in the novel . In fact Scott comes over as so vain Ikept expecting him to lament that there's very few women who can't gazeupon him anymore " That's worse than getting eaten by a Triffid girls " Having said that Dougray is Daniel Day Lewis in comparison with EddieIzzard . Who thought it was a good idea to cast a transvestite comedianin a dramatic role ? It's made even worse that much of the storyrevolves around Torrance's villain . I've never liked the guy and knowhim mostly as one of the world's most unfunny comedians and I genuinelythink he must have been on drugs whilst acting his part . There's nogravatis to Torrance , no presence and no conviction . Really maybe theBBC should have cloned Izzard and made him play the Triffids and let atree play Torrance . It'd definitely be an improvement Part Two entirely goes its own way adding its own characters andsubplots while forgetting the main subplot of the novel featuring ablinded population is entirely ignored . It's like watching asubstandard RTD scripted episode of DOCTOR WHO . There's a due ex machina plot twist that makes no sense while Torrance has the worst finalline demise in television history . When all is said and done even the1962 film version has its better points than this mega million dollarmega flop

David Ceney 2012-04-24 07:53:02

Dumbed down for new Doctor Who generation

I have been looking forward to The Day of The Triffids ever since Iheard the rumours that it was being made last year sometime. I havelong been a huge fan of Wyndhams work and I feel that he may haveagreed with me on the point that this adaptation (as did the 1962Howard Keel version) totally missed the point. The book is an in depthstory of the human races survival not in a world that has been totallydestroyed, but in a society that has, two things that often get mixedup. The book explores Bill Masens struggle with his ethics in wantingto help people but not exactly knowing the best way to do so, he isn'tmeant to be a 'Keither Sutherland' type hero, more of an everyman whois acting the way that maybe we all would. The new adaptation has noneof the original horror of London waking up to be blinded, the originalstory explained how a comet travelled over the planet and the blindnessset in gradually, thus allowing the whole planet to experience itgradually and to be blinded. The new version simply shows a huge flashblinding those that saw it, what about the people who were in the TVstudio that were only blinded when the producer guy opened the door,conveniently leading straight to outside from the studio? What aboutthe people who may have been asleep or on the toilet even? Thecharacter of Coker, made American for some reason, was nowhere near asinteresting as Wyndham had intended, and how irritating that originalcharacters from the book where just dotted in here and there with noreal purpose, Miss Durrant (now a Nun, originally represented the wholeaspect of religion and faith on the effect of society) has been turnedinto a medieval witch type character, Susan the adopted daughter(originally representing the lost and scared child), has now become agun wielding 13 year old with a sister who after one day is referringto Bill and Jo as Mom and Dad a mere few days after the presumabledeath of her real parents. Dennis (originally a blind man that hadlived at Shirning Farm with his blinded wife, now becoming Bills Fatherwith no explanation as to why he wasn't blind) Michelle Beadley(Originally Michael Beadley, representing the voice of total commonsense, and giving a brilliant explanation of survival in the originalbook and also the 1980's TV series) was not heard of again after thefirst episode.Cokers plan to help the blind in the book was to attach one sightedperson to 50 blind, and to spread them throughout London, a much betterplan than handcuffing one blind to each sighted and all moving into apub together. And the ridiculous notion of 'finding' a cash and carryand being totally amazed with comments like 'I knew this place washere' as if we all wouldn't know where to find stuff if we had to? TheDay of the Triffids is a book about survival; the Triffids are asub-plot of the novel, something that I believe Wyndham had put in forthe science fiction value, to appeal to people who are looking forsomething different. The new adaptation has simply made this into aZombie type story with no real meaning at all.

Jon Farley 2012-04-23 11:01:32

A Wasted Opportunity

With modern production capabilities, this version could have been themost brilliant rendering of Wyndham's book, but it wasn't. The CGIdtriffids from the leaves upwards were fair depictions of Wyndham'sdescription but the speedily creeping tendrils at the bottom were morereminiscent of the Evil Dead than the Day of the Triffids. The lack ofthe three stumpy legs on which the plants 'hobble' and (through whichthey obtained the name Tri-ffed), as well as the hammer appendagesthrough by they communicate with an indecipherable and creepy kind ofMorse 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 theSalivating Foxglove' As normal, the script suffered from 'BBC Disease'- the sacrificing of literary accuracy for 'Social Relevance', whichwas taken to such extremes that it threw away any relationship with theoriginal story and could only be described as supremely silly.Eagerly anticipated, a sad anticlimax! better by far is the 1981production starring John Duttine.