Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

alla0015 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)...

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews Britain, present day. Oil from a genetically altered walking carnivorous plant saves the world from the harmful use of fossil fuels. We take advantage of them, however, and when the majority of our planet's population is instantly blinded, these Triffids escape and we now have to deal with both them and this sudden(perhaps too much so?) collapse of society. This focuses on Dr. Masen(Scott) who studies them(just as his parents did until his mother died and he lost contact with his father), the reporter Jo(Richardson) and the mysterious and pragmatic Torrence(a nicely menacing Izzard). We see how the military, the religious institutions and regular people react to this turn of events, and how some sighted are willing to give up everything to save those who are not, while others frown upon that. I have not read the book, nor watched another version of this... I hear that it is smarter than this lets it be. This does still comment on things and have compelling themes, such as cynicism, balance with nature and naiveté. It takes off right away and keeps to a good pace, and is consistently interesting and entertaining. The acting and the cast are great. FX are marvelous. The production values are very nice, it's filmed well with effective use of hand-held camera and sharply cut. There is tension and suspense, and the chaos is convincingly rendered. One complaint I hear that I can understand(I get that this is also not the same as the original, but I don't know what the changes are) is that it is too flashy, too Hollywood. British apocalypse fiction is more about the day after than the event, unlike the American ones. And this is listed as action(among other genres), and it really shouldn't be. The decision was undoubtedly because it's easier to sell, and it's unfortunate. Still, if this sounds appealing to you, the time investment of three hours may feel worth it. It does to me. There is a bit of bloody violence and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to those looking for a "end of the world" story that has you thinking somewhat. 7/10

kali-haircut The people who made this adaptation assumed the following:That the average British punter watching this is so thick, that if you cracked open his or her skull with a claw hammer, ate their brain, and crapped it back into their head their IQ would be increased billions of times. Take this piece of script for example:"The Triffids have escaped!" "What are the Triffids?" "They are bad and they escaped!" "The Triffids ESCAPED!?" "YES The Triffids ESCAPED!" "TRIFFIDS ESCAPED!" "TRIFFIDS ESCAPED!" "That means the Triffids have got out!" "Yes, the Triffids have got out. The Triffids are BAD, and now they've GOT OUT!"Of course, I can't quite convey it as stupidly in writing. Dumbing down doesn't begin to describe the depth and magnitude of this level of cultural ruin. The TV adaptation of the early 80s was infinitely better in every way. Not just the script and direction. Even the camera work, the special effects, were vastly better. Our only hope is to cull those in our population who think this sort of guff is worth the license fee, and bring back the death penalty specifically for the sort of muff-botherers who make this drivel. Scrap the BBC if it can make excrement like this, sacrificing Radio 4 may be hard, but it would be worth it so that this sort of thing would no longer come into the world. We need to see the scriptwriters, directors, producers and funders publicly tortured and executed on TV instead, it would be a great moral improvement on this level of depravity.

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