20 of 35 people found the following review helpful
Day of Tripe,
This review is from: Day Of The Triffids [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)
Where to even start with this utter garbage?
Maybe the lack of the definite article in the title should have tipped us off as to lack of fidelity to Wyndham's classic novel but I doubt anyone could have predicted a total car crash of an adaptation like this.
Wyndham's sombre post-apocalyptic novel has been travestied.
In place of the coldly rational Torrence of the book we get a cartoon villain played by Eddie Izzard. He not only walks away unharmed from a plane crash but he instantly takes over 10 Downing Street after finding the door unlocked.
There are no diseases spread by the millions of corpses left rotting in London.
The sympathetically portrayed convent community of Wyndham's novel has become a den of human sacrifice.
There are schoolgirls with machine guns. Guns everywhere, in fact. All the police carry them.
Triffids can climb trees. Instead of just stingers they have prehensile tendrils like B-movie monsters and can strangle their prey. God knows why they are even called triffids as they no longer walk on three legs. Their chilling drumming sound has been replaced by animal-like screeches.
Oh, and Mason has daddy issues.
Read the book or watch the excellent 80's adaptation starring John Duttine.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 2 Jan 2010 17:40:14 GMT
Monk da wolly de honk says:
Thank you for the review speaker.
Why do people on amazon keep giving negative reviews poor feedback? whats the point in a review system that only has five star reviews?
This is a comprehensive review with many valid points and yet people click to say it was unhelpful - why???
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jan 2010 07:27:01 GMT
Neal Vincent says:
Negative reviews generally tend to get poor feedback because people confuse "unhelpful" with "disagree"...
I haven't rated the review up or down, but since you ask ... in this review's case the opening rant about "the lack of the definite article" probably earned it some unhelpful votes because it's completely incorrect: AMAZON may have dropped the definite article, but the filmmakers didn't. Look at the pack-shot picture; look at the show itself: THE Day of the Triffids. Present and correct, sir.
So, what you have here is a reviewer mistakenly accusing the filmmakers of a grammatical offence and then running with it as if it's some kind of metaphor for the adaptation as a whole. Not exactly the basis for a balanced and well-informed review.
The reviewer obviously hated the new adaptation, and that's his business, but when the review consists entirely of the reviewer's opinion of the show (as opposed to any factual remarks about the quality of the as-yet unreleased physical product) then it shouldn't be surprising when people rate it according to their opinion of his opinion.
Posted on 13 Jan 2010 15:36:25 GMT
Jeff Eldridge says:
A little harsh, but generally I agree with this review. Part 1 offered much; the set sequences largely followed the '81 TV series but with a modern slant. Part 2 went off on its own and was an utter disaster. The story was changed "just because" rather than being given a modern update.
The problem, IMHO, was that this modern version was about the Triffids, where as Wyndham's book and the '81 series wasn't. It was about mankind's struggle to survive and the Triffids were the danger.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›