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...

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

This 2009 mini TV series of "Day of the Triffids" is actually the first encounter I have had with the Triffids. I only just found out that there are older movies out there, when I went to write the review here on IMDb.Anyway, being unfamiliar with this franchise, I had no expectations as to what this TV series should deliver or live up to. I have to say that I found it to be adequately alright.The CGI effects were nice to look at, which really is the carrier of the series. The effects in here is what carries the show. But flesh-eating plants that move around? Well, I had a bit of a problem with that. Not really something within my field of interest. But I will not let that drag my opinion down.As for the cast and acting, well I thought it was alright. There were some fairly good faces on the casting list, and they did manage to provide sufficient entertainment throughout the entire series. Normally I do not like Jason Priestley, but he actually managed to shed his 90210 shackles in this production. So that was a great plus, for me at least.Now, what was halting here, in my opinion, was the overall story. Sure, there was a red line throughout the story, but there are just so many things that makes you go "hmmm, now why would that happen?" or "yeah, that is what would happen in a situation like that". And that was bringing the overall experience of the TV series down.I do not consider this 2009 remake of the "Day of the Triffids" to be a bad experience, it actually came off quite alright, and it was worth sitting through it, although I did doze off once or twice along the way.If you like sci-fi, and if you like movies that are not heavy on plot or requires all too much thinking, then you might find "Day of the Triffids" right up your alley. And I suspect the same goes if you are a fan of really old sci-fi flicks that have been brushed up and put up to speed with the current date and technology, then you might want to sink your teeth into this.

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