Injured in an attack at his work place, triffid expert Bill Mason (sp) is in hospital with his eyes bandaged when the solar event of a lifetime occurs across the earth as solar flares create a cosmic firework display for all to see. When he wakes he finds the hospital in chaos as everyone appears to have been struck blind with only those not watching the sky at its peak. Society quickly crumbles as those with sight struggle with the choices inherent in protecting the weak or looking after themselves. However Mason has more immediate concerns as he knows that the triffids, farmed for years for their oil, require strict control and management given their ability to move and their carnivorous diet and that inevitable power failures will release them to look for easy and defenceless food sources.
In the original material the triffids are pretty much in the background of the story as the focus is more on the collapse of society and the retention (or otherwise) of morality that comes with it. The BBC miniseries got closest to it while the b-movie from the 1960's focused more on the escape from the creatures themselves. Although I did expect a bit more in the way of intelligence and horrific moral drama from this three hour film, I was not overly surprised to find that the Christmas BBC blockbuster production took the "action first" route – not surprised but perhaps a little disappointed. This is not in itself a bad thing because I don't see the logic in deriding something simply because it didn't stick to the source material if whatever it does with it actually works well – it is a different time, a different media and a different writer (adapter). Being protective is not a bad thing either, but the reality is somewhere in the middle, not at either extreme.
The problem then because one of whether this version "works" and it must be said that it does work well in specific moments but not as a whole. What this means is that there are moments and sequences that work well if you just view them as standalone moments. Many of the triffid attacks are well done, while there are scattered moments of drama associated with the treatment of the blind and the selection of survivors. These "moments" are not momentary and as a result I did quite enjoy it as I sat in front of it but ultimately I am not watching a series of "reasonably good bits" but rather one drama that has to work over three hours (yes, three). This is the thing you see, it doesn't work that well, mostly due to the focus of the plot combined with the near total lack of internal logic.
The plot has decided that a clear goodie and baddie are required so, although he is never explained and doesn't make a lot of sense, Eddie Izzard's Torrence is the baddie foil to Mason's goodie. As a result, the bigger picture quickly takes a back seat to Torrence's pursuit of Mason and Jo. This gives us the base of a thriller plot but it does rather fold the whole story in on itself and needs good work done to layer it and add more complexity to it. Sadly it doesn't do this. There are some small moment of tragedy and tough decisions early on but mostly it doesn't do this and it certainly doesn't make it part of the total film so much as part of specific moments. The frequent moments of peril keep it distracting but they are not enough on their own to fill the running time or to distract the mind from the many illogical moments or moments of sheer lay writing convenience (constantly ensuring that the main characters manage to find each other to keep the narrative moving). This continues the whole way to a weak ending that does the same thing and is somewhat of a disappointment that brings earlier failings into sharper focus.
The cast are reasonably impressive on paper but not that good in reality. Scott matches the square jaw of Howard Keel with his gruff voice and lack of noticeable range. Richardson is better but is never given the material to work with. Izzard could have been a great villain but sadly nobody has written one for him so his performance is poor and his presence distracting – he does seem to be in a different movie. Priestly has more of a "oh look at him" effect rather than being a good turn, while the presence of Cox, Bremner and Redgrave suggest more have been possible with a better script.
Not a great surprise then to find that a festive television special delivers the b-movie monster thrills but doesn't challenge or engage the brain all that much (although to read the boards here you'd think the makers had exhumed Wyndham and performed terrible acts with his remains). Missed potential and full of irritating jumps in logic and plotting make it nothing more than this and not something to go out of your way to see.
