Rubies The post-apocalypse is a very diverse thing, with which it is customary to play constantly in cinema, adding something new and replaying old traditions. “Triffid Day” is essentially a post-apocalypse, about attempts to survive in the world of predatory plants, when there are only ruins around, and the vast majority of the population is blind. This is the third attempt at film adaptation after the wonderful film of Freddie Francis in 1962 and the invisible TV series of 1981.
On this basis, you can play, as going into originality and innovation, and not shy of similarity with representatives of different, but something similar, genres. For example, a crowd of blind people in a destroyed city, pulling their hands to every sighted person is nothing more than a familiar feature from zombie films, and a kind of “Dawn of the Dead” here looks no less nightmarish than with real zombies, and the external threat in the face of living and intelligent man-eating plants is destroyed alone by a control shot into the “head” (that is, in a flower), which again refers to the classics of zombie films.
High-budget crashes and urban ruins look very good, but the image of the triffids themselves is most striking. Both externally and in terms of movement, they look extremely realistic, which completely immerses in the tense atmosphere and causes complete confidence in what is happening. The film not only very vividly and often demonstrate the possibilities of the quality of modern CGI, but also do not try to hide the scenes of the attack, as is often the case when the viewer is kept almost in the dark about the appearance of monsters and monsters. The creators were clearly proud of the original image quality that these dangerous plants demonstrate so clearly and clearly in all their glory.
For that part of the visual, when it comes to graphics, you can note a bright and remarkable cast. Here there is the star of the original “Beverly Hills 90210” Jason Priestley, perfectly played Cocker, Dugray Scott from the sequel “Mission: Impossible” ideally suited to the role of the charismatic protagonist, and Eddie Izzard (" Operation: “Valkyrie”) played a negative to disgust villain (Torrence), causing the strongest antipathy, and sometimes even rage and contempt for such a nasty character. In a small role will please the bright Ewan Bremner ("Pearl Harbor, Alien vs. Predator, Black Hawk), as well as in the film there is Brian Cox from “Bournes”, “Troy” and “Braveheart”.
A modern innovation, in contrast to the book source and previous film adaptation, was radio host Joe, performed by Joelie Richardson ("Patriot, 101 Dalmatians, Through the Horizon), becoming an important plot person, and at the same time the passion of the main character. The role of the girl Susan, ignored by the plot of 1981, but returned to the new film adaptation, was performed by Jenn Murray, not particularly suitable for such a role by age, but organically merged into the film, making of a girl-furniture, whose presence in the book and the first film adaptation served only as another way to supplement the tension of the film due to the audience experience for the child, a real warrior with a machine gun and an explosive temperament. However, the creators apparently noticed the not quite suitable role and age of such a character and supplemented it with the younger sister Imogen (Julia Joyce), who played the original “classic” role for Susan.
Thus, there are two fundamental innovations: the introduction of a radio host as the main girl of the film and an increase in the number of children by exactly one thing, which did not prevent the film from being compared with the original source and at the same time perceived as a separate creation. The plot, shifted in time to the modern industrial period of human life, more clearly manages to reveal the characters of the central persons in a short time, without a long variety of communities, the characters face transitions from one to another, turning survival in the post-apocalypse into a fascinating adventure that looks interesting and intense all three hours of screen time.
Such a film could famously be taken to the movie rental, because the budget of 15 million more than, for example, “Saw” or some slasher, and the creators of the effects really can be proud of the work done, as well as the director of the film – Nick Copus, very well serving the material with a good shot, which is extremely pleasant to watch.
And the only nuance of what should be denounced and reproached the creators is the temporary absence of any logic in what is happening. Watching one of the scenes, involuntarily remember the events minutes earlier, where the main character was ready to sell his soul, just to put protective glasses on the eyes of his partner, and now in the frame walking around in much more dangerous conditions, among the corpses of former colleagues, from which these same devices for eye protection can be stolen by a whole pile, not to care about his organs of vision or especially about the eyes of his girlfriend, and after some time the teenage girl manages to climb and hide in a locked car or even leave the house, being locked in a locked room.
Such nuances, which could and should be supplemented with details and specifics, were simply not exchanged here, stretching the film with completely unnecessary scenes of the suicide of a violinist, the shooting of blind citizens and many others, not particularly affecting what is happening and not too interesting in their content, while the plot elements need attention to detail, and the preservation of the general logic of the film would benefit, because each such dubious scene could be played a little longer, but at the same time more expressive and believable.
Having preserved the character of each of the characters, the authors of the script simply transferred the plot to our realities, playing a wonderful variation on the topic that you want to watch and review, have in the collection and even glue into one whole film, so as not to torture yourself with unnecessary credits of the first part and initial flashbacks “what was before” at the beginning of the second. A wonderful free film adaptation with a good approach and an excellent selection of actors for the types of required characters. However, despite all the advantages and charms, I still love the old film of 1961 more, and someday maybe we will see the film adaptation as close to the original text as possible.
9 OF 10
Original