mcguin71 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...

the_wolf_imdb The premise of the movie (about first 5 minutes) seemed to be interesting. Then there was totally improbable catastrophe (all people on Earth blinded by Sun including those on night side, in the metro, in the mines, just one guy who sleeps in plane with hat on his eyes and another one who has few layers of bandage is not blinded... huh).Then all strange and extremely implausible things start to happen. Then there are some characters with unlikely motivation start to do bizarre things like guy who tries to arrange military coup in the middle of chaos. Unfortunately ALL characters behave in very absurd ways: They constantly fire obviously useless weapons on plants, shout "STOP SHOUTING! STOP SHOUTING!", try to save obviously dead people and so on. In general they seem to fight among themselves than to take a stand and find some reasonable solution to the plan infestation.This movie is almost completely brain dead and painful to watch. I'm simply not able to survive the second part, the first one was bad enough. The King's The Mist may have some crazy characters too, but overall it is worlds better than this.

Warren Marris Many of the reviews have already talked about lazy direction and glaring mistakes... IE: Joley Richardsons Character meeting the other heroes and proclaiming "I thought I was the only one" within 2 minutes of the shows big event... And yeah! Thats a fair pick up......But realistically, would you really have sat there for 4 hours to watch the two main characters scramble about trying to find another person who could see among a world full of the blind? Of Course you wouldn't! So we have "Artistic License". Eddie Izzard surviving the plane crash... About as real as Katie Price's Boobs... But hey! Its menat to be TV!!! There is room for a bit of "No Way" Stuff...The show has some good moments of tension - though it does bear heavy on the "Eco Friendly" line for a while. And where the original story had the Triffids drop from space, here they are natives to Zaire where our capitalist society messes with them and so the film acts as a warning against GM as well... That for me was a spoil point - I am an eco warrior but even I get sick of it being rammed down peoples throats! Do not be fooled by a big name cast list either - Many of the characters are indeed very throw away.As for the end... If you have read the original books, heard the Radio Play or seen the original series, the end will not really be much of a surprise...Ignore the very Hollywood reviews, and watch with a typically open minded attitude. Over all the film is a reasonable adaption and well worth a watch. Some good action moments even if the Triffids are obviously rubbery (Adds to the shows Charm for me!) An Excellent watch if a little Flawed... But so was Avatar and many Holloywood Winners so be sensible and lok at it for what it is.NB: IF I hear one more person moan about Eddie Izzards Character preserving his own wretched life instead of asking what was going on - I WILL SCREAM! We do not know what we would do if we found out we had mere minutes before death... So stop being bloody pedantic!

TheLittleSongbird 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