Another day, another remake – although this one's strictly a new adaptation of the classic John Wyndham novel, which was already filmed once back in the 1960s and made into a miniseries by the BBC in the 1980s. This one's a two-part TV film shown by the BBC at Christmas 2009. I love the novel, so I was looking forward to watching this and hoping against hope that they didn't ruin it.
They did. DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS is another example of style over substance, a film where Wyndham's thoughtful prose is tossed aside in favour of people running around with machine guns. It's heavily indebted to 28 DAYS LATER, borrowing many plot points, while at the same time having that glossy look shared by all major BBC drama these days. The Triffids themselves are CGI creations and to be fair the CGI isn't too bad – it's the script that sucks.
Never have I seen a film so chock-full of plot holes – it's as if the writer doesn't give a damn, desperate to throw in as much senseless action as possible. As a result, the film becomes repetitive and boring. Here are a few questions I asked myself while watching:
If the lights in the sky were a brief phenomenon – unlike in the book – where are all the people who were asleep/on the Underground who wouldn't have been blinded?
Why does every character – including kids in a village – have access to a machine gun?
What is up with the stupid tribal mask solution that makes no sense whatsoever (or should that be nonsense)?
How did Susan follow Bill when he went to trap the male Triffid – are we supposed to believe that she hid in the back of the jeep without him noticing?
How did Susan get back in the heavily-guarded room after planting the audio device at the climax (maybe she has Harry Potter's invisibility cloak)?
How many times are we to be reminded of this film's environmentally-conscious leanings?
How unlikely is it that Jo just happens to be picked up by Bill's dad in his jeep?
Why did the screenwriter focus on familiar human drama instead of the actual Triffid story?
All these flaws and plot holes combine to make a thoroughly ridiculous movie. The cast is also a mixed bag – Dougray Scott and Joely Richardson are fine as the heroic twosome, but some of the supporting actors are really awful – especially Eddie Izzard's bad guy, who seems to be trying to imitate Gary Oldman in LEON. Jason Priestley, once an American heartthrob, now unrecognisable, has a thankless minor part, and Brian Cox's turn amounts to little more than a cameo, lucky him. All in all, this is the worst Triffids adaptation to date.
They did. DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS is another example of style over substance, a film where Wyndham's thoughtful prose is tossed aside in favour of people running around with machine guns. It's heavily indebted to 28 DAYS LATER, borrowing many plot points, while at the same time having that glossy look shared by all major BBC drama these days. The Triffids themselves are CGI creations and to be fair the CGI isn't too bad – it's the script that sucks.
Never have I seen a film so chock-full of plot holes – it's as if the writer doesn't give a damn, desperate to throw in as much senseless action as possible. As a result, the film becomes repetitive and boring. Here are a few questions I asked myself while watching:
If the lights in the sky were a brief phenomenon – unlike in the book – where are all the people who were asleep/on the Underground who wouldn't have been blinded?
Why does every character – including kids in a village – have access to a machine gun?
What is up with the stupid tribal mask solution that makes no sense whatsoever (or should that be nonsense)?
How did Susan follow Bill when he went to trap the male Triffid – are we supposed to believe that she hid in the back of the jeep without him noticing?
How did Susan get back in the heavily-guarded room after planting the audio device at the climax (maybe she has Harry Potter's invisibility cloak)?
How many times are we to be reminded of this film's environmentally-conscious leanings?
How unlikely is it that Jo just happens to be picked up by Bill's dad in his jeep?
Why did the screenwriter focus on familiar human drama instead of the actual Triffid story?
All these flaws and plot holes combine to make a thoroughly ridiculous movie. The cast is also a mixed bag – Dougray Scott and Joely Richardson are fine as the heroic twosome, but some of the supporting actors are really awful – especially Eddie Izzard's bad guy, who seems to be trying to imitate Gary Oldman in LEON. Jason Priestley, once an American heartthrob, now unrecognisable, has a thankless minor part, and Brian Cox's turn amounts to little more than a cameo, lucky him. All in all, this is the worst Triffids adaptation to date.