The Prisoner (2009) User Reviews

One Possible Interpretation of The Prisoner remake

[jeconway3 · 5/10 · 18 November 2009]

Mr. Curtis (aka #2) CEO of Summakor, developed a technology to tap into people's subconscious minds. Somehow, Curtis' wife, M2, placed into an artificially-induced dream state, controls the world of the subconscious (called The Village). As M2 awakens from time to time, reality creeps into the subconscious environment as a number of bottomless holes that randomly appear in grounds of The Village campus.

Everything in the Village exists in the subconscious minds of M2, Curtis/2 and people/Village residents. The "residents" have been carefully selected by Curtis/2 as subjects in need of mental therapy. Curtis/2 has injected himself into the subconscious Village world to directly try to heal the selected people. If Curtis/2 can control the subconscious of people (i.e. make them happy and peaceful in their subconscious world), he reasons, the people will mimic those feelings and actions in the real world.

Michael (aka #6), a Summakor employee, has worked on the Summakor technology at some level (subject identification?). Suspecting that the technology is being used unwisely, Michael/6 decides to resign from Summakor. Curtis/2, unhappy with this, somehow taps Michael's subconscious and brings him into The Village environment. In doing so Curtis/2 hopes to bring Michael/6 back to Summakor.

(The film uses a plot stunt that initially looks like flashbacks... in reality they are "toggles" between events on-going in the real world and simultaneous events being played out in the subconscious minds of the residents. This is why the plot seems so disjointed. We observe versions of both reality and the subconscious through the eyes of the individuals on-screen at any given moment.) Curtis/2 makes numerous attempts at inducing Michael/6 to rejoin Summakor/The Village by utilizing a broad range of subconscious "Village" tricks. None work. At his wit's end Curtis/2 suddenly has an epiphany (triggered by his subconscious, imaginary son's behaviors) and determines that he and his wife are actually prisoners of Summakor's technology and that Michael/2 may hold the key to their escape.

With this thought, Curtis/2 decides to hand over control of both Summakor and The Village technology to Michael/6.

Through a revelation that Michale/6's Village girlfriend (313) is severely mentally ill in the real world and that The Village is her only hope, Curtis/2 convinces Michael/6 to re-join Summakor as head of The Village project. Michael/6 steps up to the challenge in both the real and Village worlds.

Curtis (and his wife), the real prisoners in this tale, are finally freed from the nightmare that both Summakor and The Village have become.

Finis!

Wow. Can't believe the negative feedback on this one

[podmartin · 7/10 · 22 November 2009]

Yikes. I don't know what standards The Prisoner is being compared to by other reviewers (other than obviously the original series, which is completely different). While not absolutely stellar, it certainly is superior to almost everything out there on network TV. While it's sometimes difficult to figure out where the four first hours are going, the last two hours are really delivered with the tone of cerebral and philosophical thriller that chillingly ties the mini-series together. I thought the Prisoner's social commentary on the balance between impersonal technology and personal consciousness which is hammered home in the ending sequences was especially effective. The acting level was also certainly above network TV level -- McKellen giving a creepy performance that ultimately becomes understandable as No. 2, and Cazieval, who likes many of his other roles, brings a humanity to character who doesn't quite understand what is going on to him. There are certainly flaws in the production and scripting, but if you come with an open mind and not prepared to judge the series in the context of the original series, I think it's a worthwhile investment of the viewer's time.

Entertaining - But Major Character Flaw at End of Story (Plot Hole)

[bpmovies · 6/10 · 17 July 2010]

Movie kept my interest. It separates from the original series in numerous ways. I would have preferred a closer match. That said, I thought the approach to this was still OK, and kudos to the actors who did a very nice job.

However, this remake failed with the ending of the movie. I won't spoil it. I believe the audience is left with just not believing the main character would act that way -- based on the story's own construction of the character. A story can take any twist, which is is fine, but if it makes a character act "out of character" one loses faith in the story. In this case, there is no justification for the ending based on what was seen. Unfortunate writing at the end.

Steaming pile of equine excrement

[daniel-tracy · 17 November 2009]

As a fan of the original Prisoner I can't begin to say how incredibly disappointed I am with this "remake". The "plot" is non-existent and makes no sense. It might be good if it had characters that made kept your interest in spite of the unintelligible plot line but sadly there isn't a single character that makes me care about what happens to them. In the original Patrick McGoohan was an excellent actor and portrayed an engaging character. The character of 6 in the original embodied the admirable quality of not giving up in spite of the odds. He was direct, smart and capable. In contrast, this 6 is a confused mamby-pamby guy with the personality of a doorstop. I am especially disappointed that one of my favorite actors, Ian McKellen would agree to appear in this mess. I think Patrick McGoohan is turning over in his grave.

It's Not The Prisoner of Old.

[roderickgmccall · 6/10 · 2 April 2020]

This is a completely unique interpretation of The Prisoner (1967), so if you are expecting a remake, it will disappoint you. I was an avid viewer of the original. While it shares some imagery and key aspects, beyond that this is a standalone original TV series. Instead (and for some context), imagine what sort of world you live in now, and that someone kidnaps you and you wake up in a mythical village. The question then is why? These changes are not always bad things.

The narrative structure is except for the last episode, also different. The original had concrete narrative blocks, which meant each episode had some clarity. In this series there is no obvious individual narrative block in each episode, the plots run around semi-randomly, only pose questions and don't answer them. The last episode is ironically clearer than the original series, but still leaves the viewer with some sense of confusion. Also, this series only works if you watch it until the end. The dialogue is ok, occasionally very good, but often seems a little too contrived.

Many of the themes from the original series remain such as identity, individuality etc, but perhaps because of the more modern style feel lost or half hearted. There is too much going on, and as a result it lacks depth. This series is from 2009, with a different acting style to the 1960s. Back in those days, stage style acting often appeared on TV, and the original series was no exception to this. Sometimes this worked, other times it was just over the top. Fast forward to this version and the acting is more consistent and suited to the small screen. As ever, Ian McKellen does an excellent job. Jim Caviezel is 90% there. His acting sometimes shines, but it lacks the consistent, excellent performance that you get from McKellen. It feels like he just needs more rehearsal and an injection of some spontaneity now and again. Otherwise his performance and those of the supporting cast is consistent, good but lacks buzz. It feels unfair to compare everyone in The Prisoner to someone such as Ian McKellen, but you just can't help it. In reality, he just lacked a comparable sparring partner in this series.

Image is everything, and the sets and locations are as impressive as the original series. Perhaps more menacing is the sheer similarity of most houses except for the Palace of No. 2. This serves to make the feeling of forced conformity clearer. The design team did an excellent job, with one notable exception, The Clinic; it just feels lame in terms of interior and exterior. There are some occasional references to the original series.

Overall, this series is watchable. Not bad, but just not as good as it could have been. The writing and episode structures are just too confusing and will put many people off. This is a great pity, as its ending is no less clever than the original, only different. Try to get to the end and you will get some reward. This series just tries to hard which is why it doesn't quite make it.

Hard to separate from the original.

[grendelkhan · 4/10 · 18 November 2009]

The new Prisoner deserves to be reviewed as its own entity; but, it is so hard to separate it from the classic original. It attempts to cover the same ground, reference the same characters and plots, but with a 21st Century viewpoint. Unfortunately, its ideas boil down to surveillance and paranoia, glossed with New Age psychology. Instead of an allegory for the struggle of the individual against society, it features an allegory of what is wrong with Hollywood. This version seems to owe more to the Matrix than McGoohan.

Most of the characters are bland, with no real stand-outs, apart from Ian McKellan's Number 2. McKellan could have easily occupied the globe chair alongside Leo McKern, Peter Wyngarde, and Colin Gordon. However, after all the malevolence, the filmmakers try to make him sympathetic in the end. James Caviezel brings nothing to 6, except confusion and stress.

The Village setting is eye-catching and creative, but the Summakor scenes are the same old corporate conspiracy set-up. The Village and its inner workings are what we want; but, here, less is less.

What really marks this attempt as a failure is the real lack of ideas. This is the allegory of Hollywood. It is so bereft of ideas that it can't execute a remake without jettisoning the original's real hook. Instead, it's just a glossy duplicate; a photoshopped, laser-copied duplicate, rather than a work of art. Where the original thundered with style, wit and oratory, this version meekly plays out banal lines and postcard scenery. In fact, a postcard really sums it up. The original was like taking an adventure trip; this is like sitting at home, looking at a postcard from the adventurers. It lacks the thrill.

The original series was a blend of spy-fi, Kafka, Orwell, and Lewis Carrol; this is the Cliffs Notes of 1984 crossed with Eckart Toelle. Do yourself a favor and seek out the original. It is timeless. What was true then is still true now. Mostly, it will make you use your brain, which this definitely does not.

I would be remiss in not mentioning the broadcast of the program, complete with teasers to information, which are designed solely to get you to watch commercials that are forgotten after they disappear. The information is never delivered. McGoohan would have built an episode around the marketing of this show and its presentation. Yet another failed attempt by the Village to manipulate our perceptions.

Perhaps I am one of the few who actually understood and enjoyed this series

[cutaway · 7/10 · 22 November 2009]

I made it through a few pages of comments here without coming across anyone one else who seems to have enjoyed this series. I have not seen the "original" so that may be the good reason I enjoyed this so much. The story explores "love", "hate" (loathing), and "death", via the main storyline. These ideas are teased out subtly and expertly as the author / director makes generous use of artistic license in social and religious arenas.

I really don't see what's not to understand or like about this one, although, I would admit you have to pay close attention.

The village exists on a "level of consciousness" accessible through drugs. Mrs. number 2 sustains the village consciousness in her sleep, 2 gets to play "god" in that consciousness with a different color pill, and all the other players exist (through drugs) for there own good because they have their own reasons to want to not remember their life in their own normal consciousness.

There are so many interesting concepts here that it's hard to pick a spot to begin.

Doesn't 2 seem to conduct himself a whole lot like one of the more popular gods currently en vogue? 2 is an egotistical tyrant who does what he does for the good of the humanity.

Misfire

[pro_crustes · 2/10 · 16 November 2009]

If you remember the original, you will find this one a remake in name only. None of the sly cat-and-mouse interplay the eponymous character engaged in can be seen this time. The new Six is much more of a castaway than a prisoner, not knowing how he got where he is, nor having any sense for sure that escape is possible. In a bizarre and inconsistent variation from the source material, Villagers appear to have had their memories erased, but not completely. The new Six is such a victim, yet also deliberately tries to get some of his suspected captors to admit to knowledge of things he himself is supposed to have lost.

The notion that the Villagers mostly don't know they are prisoners robs the entire story of its most poignant element: that everyone's cheerful demeanor is an act of submission to their captors. That was the original's metaphor to describe how many people felt about their relationship to government at that time, so viewers related easily and shared that Six's wish not only to escape, but to best his captors locally when he could not escape. This time, we only have mystery and enigma, with nothing resembling our own experiences or woes.

This is what you would get if you wanted a remake as tied to its source material as the 2009 "Star Trek" was to its progenitor, but your investors said your target audience were the people who liked the first season of "Lost."

Surreal Subjugation

[Sandsquish · 8/10 · 23 November 2009]

1967's Cold War and its counter culture are gone; they've been replaced by 2009's global village and its consumer culture. So 2009's Prisoner is no longer an angry young man fighting for his identity against secret government policies and flagrant brainwashing, he's an angst-ridden 30-something trying to hang on to his identity in the face of overwhelming marketing and soothing pharmaceuticals.

2009's The Prisoner takes all the familiar elements of 1967's cult classic and re-interprets them in a relevant way, just like good remakes are supposed to. The psychedelic, lava-lamp surrealism of the sixties may be gone, but, don't worry, they've been replaced by the post-modern, dream-like surrealism of the oughts.

Yes, the Village still needs to assimilate No. 6, but it no longer cares why he would wish to resign from its society, it only wants him to understand that he can't. Instead of foiling No. 6's repeated escape attempts from the superficially charming, but inherently oppressive, Village, this new Village, still just as pleasant-looking, and oppressive, just makes it clear that there is no place else to escape to. The consumer culture and its global village are everywhere now. There is no escape.

So, instead of a government desperately trying Pavlovian conditioning, hypnotic suggestion, and hallucinogens in the water, a corporation tries matching people with their perfect mates, giving them mind-numbing jobs to take their minds off their melancholy, distracting them with melodramatic soap operas, and, maybe, making them feel a little better with some gene-therapy.

Sure, everyone's still under surveillance in this Village, but this time, its not the Village government trying to identify revolutionaries so it can silence them, its the Summakor corporation trying to identify dreamers so it can subject them to a concentrated dose of consumer culture. And if that doesn't work, maybe a few pharmaceuticals and a promotion will co-opt the more troublesome ones.

Six compelling hours

[johnyeager · 7/10 · 25 November 2009]

(Flagged as containing spoilers, but I'll try to limit that)

Overall a nice six hours spent exploring a difficult topic. Following the story line is difficult, but it's meant to be as this reflects the confusion of the protagonist throughout the drama. Things only become clearer to us as they do to the protagonist.

The question of dreaming and dreamers and to what extent dreaming ruins our lives, to what extent wanting more than we have and to be more than we are makes us miserable, is an interesting idea to explore. This movie asks us to think about the questions of security, happiness, free-will, and aspiration and how much of one we'd give up for another, yet manages to approach this from a rather different view than the usual liberty/security dichotomy.

Like most science fiction, a lot of the energy in the movie goes into following all the implications of the premise. This places a strait-jacket on the characters, who are thus less developed and not terribly compelling. It's not clear whether this really had to be quite so limiting on most of the characters, but it is faithful to the underlying idea being explored.

In comparing with the original series, I was struck by comparisons at three levels. At the surface, the original was more easily enjoyable. Working on a much more "standard" cold-war premise, the viewer and the prisoner were much more at-home with the mechanics of the Village and the series felt more like a standard us-vs-them experience. Both series explored certain existential questions, and both finales explored the questions of to what degree we imprison ourselves and why, but the new series is trying to explore this theme much more fully through-out the entire arc opening many more questions than it answers. Finally, we were invited to compare the thematic explorations in the original episodes from which the new ones derived their name. Each paralleled the original, but typically delved into a deeper question (for instance The Schizoid Man explored the ways in which denying 6 his number made him want to be 6, while Schizoid instead went after deeper questions of identity and the question of what aspects of ourselves lead us and which enable us to be lead).

Technically, the sound design makes it difficult to follow the dialog. The visual aspects are quite interesting; the new setting is nearly as creepily cheery as the original.

This is why we hate remakes

[toycarguy · 2/10 · 17 November 2009]

In general, I was enjoying this; yet, every now and again my brain warned me, "this better have a resolution that works." It doesn't. I began to have more serious concerns tonight as we learned what the Village is (and isn't). They spent all that time building up the intrigue and suspense, all to have it vaporized by (summarizing / paraphrasing here) "well, that's certainly thoughtful, let's continue the work then, shall we?" The final scene with 313 didn't really make sense -- is she the replacement for Mrs. 2? And how did Mrs. 2 bring people "into" the Village anyway? Through the Matrix, perhaps? Had the ending actually worked, I could have given the series an overall 7 or 8, or perhaps even higher. I was thoroughly pleased with McKellan's performance, and Caviezel was at least satisfactory (IMHO, writing, rather than acting, was the weakness of his version of 6). They should have started wrapping things a littler earlier, to allow time to actually flesh out the reveal and explain things more clearly. Instead, the build-up to 6's resolution simply came off as rushed. Ah, well; at least they -finally- threw in a Penny-Farthing for us to "A-ha!" at before turning off the lights.

Re-Imaging The Prisoner

[timdalton007 · 8/10 · 13 May 2010]

A man resigns from a mysterious agency. Soon, he finds himself in a place known only as "the Village" where nobody has a name but is a number where he's re-dubbed Six by its leader a man known only as Two. Resisting Two's attempts to break his mind with his insistence "I am not a number, I am a free man," Six begins trying to escape while trying to piece together what and where the Village really is. That, in short, is the premise of the six episode miniseries re-imaging of the classic 1967 Patrick McGoohan TV series The Prisoner. The Prisoner is an intriguing psychological thriller with sci-fi overtones.

The miniseries is anchored by a fine cast. Jim Caviezal plays Six, a man lost in a strange world and always on his guard against everyone and everything around him, who is a radically different character from the McGoohan version. His foe is Sir Ian McKellen as Two, the Big Brother like leader who seems benevolent yet is in fact a manipulative and cunning man who brings to mind memories of Leo Mckern in the original series. The villagers include Two's son 11-12 (Jamie Campbell Bower), the beautiful but mysterious doctor 313 (Ruth Wilson) and 4-15 (Hayley Atwell) who has some connection to Six's old life. Together they bring to life the assorted characters who occupy the Village.

By definition, this is a re-imaging of the original series. The biggest change being the focus is on the mind games between Six and Two, making this more of a psychological thriller then the original perhaps was. These include introducing the concept of the Village being the only thing in existence which does stretch creditability quite a bit. More successful are mind games such as in Harmony when Six is told he has brother for example. More successful perhaps is the setting for these mind games is an intriguing new version of the Village set in the middle of the desert. Like in the original, it is here that the sci-fi overtones to come in. With them the series explores issues such as electronic surveillance, mind control and the ability of an individual to resist conforming with society allowing for some intriguing social commentary along the way. Also intriguing is the clever playing with flashbacks to Six's previous life which are not be what they seem. Having said all that, things can be a bit too surreal and downright confusing at times so if you don't have a open mind and don't pick up clues as the miniseries goes on, things can (and will) be baffling. Overall, the re-imaging works splendidly.

There's homages to the original series as well. These include such things as the old man's costume at the beginning of episode one (the role was originally meant as a cameo for the late Patrick McGoohan) and the return of the mysterious balloon like guard Rover. Perhaps the biggest homage lie in the various episode titles which are all derived from original series including Arrival and Checkmate to name just two. This helps to remind the audience that, though this is at times a radical re-imagining of the series, the past hasn't been completely forgotten about.

By blending fine acting, mind games, an intriguing setting, homages to the original series, and clever playing with story-lines and ideas this version of The Prisoner becomes, while not a classic, an intriguing psychological thriller with sci-fi overtones. Are you interested? Then prepare to take a classic TV series in an intriguing new direction. But remember: "You only think you're free."

Don't view it as a "remake"

[Brian14Leonard · 7/10 · 17 November 2009]

I am a big fan of the original Prisoner. This is not a remake or a reboot; it is more of an homage. There are many familiar elements from the original series, but the tone, style, and rationale are not the same. It is initially quite confusing, but eventually coalesces into something quite interesting. As others have pointed out, some of the dialogue is pretty bad (and sometimes under-recorded and practically unintelligible), and Caviezel's "Six" is quite different from McGoohan's Number Six. In the end, while nowhere near as deep or as good as the original, it is a worthwhile miniseries which does raise some very interesting points. Be seeing you!

A cry for help from a TV writer who wants to move into the Village

[ChungMo · 2/10 · 17 November 2009]

Demonstrating a complete misunderstanding (or hatred) of the original series, writer Bill Gallagher ends up endorsing the concept of the Village in this mishmash of The Truman Show and the Matrix. Throw in the stock evil corporation, a couple of useless explosions and a basket full of illogical inconsistencies and you get another A&E remake debacle.

Regardless of the esteem anyone holds of the original series, in the end, what was this six hour production really about? Like the holes that appear in the ground, nothing at all. It seems that someone in this production realized this at some point and decided to obfuscate it by making a confusing jumble. The whole thing could have been told in two hours by a decent director. And they could have called it something else, like THE RESORT.

People of Britain, respect your heritage, don't watch this garbage when it airs there.

Vaguely Interesting but mostly off-the-mark reboot.

[qmediacom · 17 November 2009]

Too much dialog written in the most obvious fashion. Too little mystery. Too little tension. The essential drama and motivation of the story missing as much as No. 6's mind.

The issues with this series have less to do with its similarity or non-similarity to its source material than it has with the tenor of contemporary film-making and writing. Classicism and all its artistic forms have all but disappeared from education, so it is not surprising that what passes off as entertainment today is hardly groundbreaking or even interesting. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but by and large episodic television is at a low point.

It isn't even so much that Prisoner 2.0 differs from the original (in itself not necessarily a bad thing if handled properly) but the fact there is little personality to the proceedings is its major weakness.

Film-making, collaborative or auteur, rely on the singular voice of its many artists ringing out in concert, guided by the deliberate hand of a producer or director who sees the forest for the trees. Film-making is about style as much as about content and the two have to cohere meaningfully. When it doesn't, as in this new reboot, the results are muddled.

The presence of Ian McKellen isn't enough to elevate it and Caviezel simply miscast.

Too bad.

Be Fair!

[christiantenfjord · 7/10 · 19 November 2009]

OK, I have not seen the original series, and have to say that I have enjoyed this new version. It can be confusing, however, thats half the fun! (some people also complains about Kubricks the Shining, do we listen to them? ).

As I am new to the Prisoner, I don't find anything wrong with it. Why not it be in the desert? Why should we change number 2 in every episode (as I understand happens in the original version). And this is so much more than a 60s spy buff!

Im going to see all the episodes, and cant wait to find out what the h... is going on!

"My head is confused with confusion!" Hey, 16 said it, not me!

[scarletminded · 3/10 · 16 November 2009]

Actual quote from this new version of the old cult classic, The Prisoner. I have to agree with 16, which says this horribly written line. It is hard to pinpoint the main reason this is all wrong. I could be obvious and say, well, it is a remake. Sure, but it doesn't seem to stop the film empire from spitting out more badly made remakes. So let me give other reasons.

First, it has none of the charisma or style of the original, all the while espousing that it is "deeper" than the original Prisoner. Upon watching the first two hours, it isn't that much deeper. Long shoots of the desert, lame dialog, lack of mystery and stealing from movies like Dark City isn't deeper by a long shot. Second, it has none of the spy fun of the original. It is just a bunch of tired old clichés and stolen ideas. Obviously, the Number Two will stay the same within the whole series, destroying the idea that Number Two can be taken out at will by the Village. And though I like Ian McKellen, he can't save this project by himself and his comments about the old series being camp and not great, just are laughable in the face of this dog of a show.

The writing is bad (see my headline), the acting is also bad, the plot line isn't like the original Prisoner at all. They might as well wrote a completely new show and made it like Lost instead of this. I don't get why people take an idea and then pick away at it so only 93 in an original black and white Prisoner blazer and Rover remain.

It's original ideas, like incorporating families into the Village, aren't really good. I always thought it was nice not to have kids in the Village as to play up that only spies were there. And Six isn't a spy here, he is an analysis, which I guess is as close to being a spy the new version wanted to touch and it is a shame because it could have had some high tech gadgets in there. Even Number Six's cool car has been replaced by a bus! Super lame! The fun of The Prisoner was spy camp, the Village people acting strangely cheery and things like Number Two's underground viewing chamber, which is missing here, replaced by Number Two looking into a clear glass while his son looks blankly into the camera for the zillionth time downstairs. The clear towers are vaguely like the Twin Tower and yes, there is also a terrorist subplot that reminded me of Brazil.

Anyway, it isn't anything I haven't seen before that was done better. I doubt I'll watch the rest of this. I gave it a shot because I didn't want to denounce it only because I love the original Prisoner. I tried to watch it like it wasn't a remake to be neutral, but it didn't work.

I won't be seeing you, bad Prisoner remake. I won't be seeing you.

Well I thought that it was OK!

[nickname1 · 6/10 · 9 January 2010]

The 2009 incarnation of 'The Prisoner' shares common plot elements with the 1967 original, and even the episode titles are based on episodes from the original. However the latest version is sufficiently different to be worth while watching. The cast is also passable, though Ian McKellen outshines the other cast members by at least one order of magnitude.

I was surprised to see the negative reviews other viewers have left. I thought that there was subtlety in the performances, although once again McKellen is the best at portraying it. I'm not fantastically fond of all the episodes in the original series, so maybe I was more receptive to a re imagination than reviewers who treasure the original highly.

This was dead at inception ...

[ptitech · 1/10 · 18 November 2009]

Personally, if the day ever dawns where I decide to remake an original that has a cult following, I would do my utmost to at least keep the flavor purely out of respect. I think when the round table meetings for this remake started someone said - "hey the old series was awesome but - let's set out to ruin it". To list a few things WRONG with the new one: 1) James Caviezel 2) The desert 3) The premise change 4) The tone 5) The love interest 6) The lack of surreal.

In a nutshell - it was awful. Even had it stood on it's own as an original it would be classed as awful and forgettable. I know every comment ahead of mine has done the comparisons to the original BUT if you set out to remake something that obviously becomes your benchmark. James Caviezel was SO out of place in this it was painful. He looked as confused as the viewers. His personality is too weak and the lack of presence contributed to my lack of interest. The original show had guts and relied solely on its content to bring you back week after week. It wasn't crammed into 3 nights hoping you'd stick with it purely out of nothing better to do for 3 evenings. McGoohan was strong and you just knew he'd never crack under ANY circumstance. He was smart, daring and always in control no matter what. We trusted him, became attached, concerned ourselves with him. We even shared his air of arrogance and distrust. Caviezel ? Who cares ? This train wreck missed the mark and I want my time refunded !! "Be seeing you"

Great show, but nobody seems to have gotten the point

[JackNTiff · 9/10 · 20 December 2009]

I'm not surprised to see all of the "Prisoner" purists posting their angry reviews about this show. The same thing happened to the incredible re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica. But I digress. If you like television that goes beyond the usual two dimensional pablum out their, then this show is for you. It's engaging, smart, and satisfying in the end. Although it seems that most people missed the point entirely about the Village. It does not exist in the physical world. Nobody is physically taken away to the village, only their subconscious, or a portion (layer as the show puts it) is taken or "plugged in" to the village. The purpose of the village is to make the lives of the people in the real world easier for them to deal with. The monitoring that was taking place in the beginning of the real world subjects was a process of looking for candidates for the Village Program. Michael noticed that the people that were being monitored began to change, and that is what he was trying to inform the people on the upstairs "Purpose" floor. The change was brought about by the people being plugged in to the Village. The reason why 6 had such difficulty becoming part of the Village was because Michael/6 could not be so easily separated like all the other people that became part of the project.

How does the Village exist in the first place? The Village requires a Dreamer. In the beginning, the Dreamer, Number 2's wife, is the person who is in a dream state in both the real world and the Village dream world. Her mental state is what keeps the Village together. The holes that appear are the result of the Dreamer attaining a lucid state. You can have only one Dreamer though. Hence why there was such a program of repression amongst it's residents. Another person dreaming could create conflict in the fabric of the Village.

I can come up with two reasons for having Michael/6 take the reigns of the corporation and the Village. One is that it was the only way to keep the Village running without having 6 disrupt the whole project and two, it allows for Number 2 and his wife to finally take a break and be together.

I think that the final episode wraps up the miniseries very well. One warning though, it takes some serious brain power to comprehend the whole thing.

Why so negative?

[olivegirl92 · 7/10 · 18 November 2009]

I feel anyone who makes a review referencing the Original does not understand what this was... It was not to be a remake, but rather a modified, re-imagining of the show intended for modern audiences.

That being said, as someone who has never seen the original, I highly enjoyed the series. Don't get me wrong--the various plot twists and turns left me scratching my head at every commercial break wondering how in the world they could explain that (especially the big, white ball thing, which I am told was in the original as well(?)); however, that was part of the fun of it. Yes, certain things seemed irrelevant, but you accept that they are there and move on.

If anything, the series needed to be longer to spread out the stories and to put everything into context... but maybe it was meant to be this way. Maybe it was meant for us to make our own interpretations of the storyline and what certain characters meant to the story.

Likewise, after viewing the first episode the first time I was left in utter confusion, but then I watched it again before episode two and things began to click. I would say that if one wanted to properly view the series, they shouldn't jump to conclusions and watch each episode more than one time.

All in all, it was an all right series. Yes, there were plot holes and confusion, but the acting was wonderful and it was interesting enough to keep me hooked the whole time. That, and the ending was just brilliant, in my opinion, and left it somewhat open to the viewer for interpretation.

I really wanted to like this but...

[hushlittlebunnies · 3/10 · 18 November 2009]

I found the ending a great disappointment. I watched the entire mini-series so I could present and honest opinion and was clinging to hope the way a long shot thoroughbred might stride to victory in Kentucky that this would wind up a winner but not a chance. Despite the presence of Sir Ian and the always awesome James Caviezel, as well as the beautiful Haley Atwell and Ruth Wilson, and some other well acted roles, the story drifted away from the coolness of the original (that 60's cool will never be equaled) and fell into a convoluted hole as deep as the holes in the Village itself and those holes were never fully explained. In fact, much of the elements of the story weren't explained and the climax, culminating in Ian's demise in the fashion it did, as well as the not very acceptable explanation of the towers, Ian's wife, kid and last shot and dialog of James and Ruth were even more disappointing and vague. And what of the underground world that Ian's son hung out in, that made absolutely no sense, with no reason or rhyme as to why it was there and those pills were never fully explained nor where 147's child or Haley went to down the hole (maybe to visit the new Alice coming out later this year). The whole thing wound up being a big let down and it could have been so amazing. This was just a series of links to a chain that weren't completely attached. Long live the original.

Just different.

[paperback_wizard · 8/10 · 22 November 2009]

Last week, AMC premiered a six-part series, "The Prisoner", based on a 1960's series of the same name. The original series was conceived, starred, and mostly written by screen legend Patrick McGoohan ("Escape from Alcatraz", "Braveheart") and ran a total of 17 episodes.

The new series stars Jim Caviezel ("Passion of the Christ") and Sir Ian McKellen ("The Da Vinci Code", "The Lord of the Rings"). I hadn't seen the original before watching this version, though thanks to retrospectives and sci-fi specials, I've been aware of it for some time. After watching AMC's presentation, though, I went to AMC.com and watched the entire series. Frankly, I felt AMC's version to be slightly superior. There were many elements of McGoohan's series, not the least of which being his performance as the eponymous Prisoner, that outstripped AMC's version; but overall, I consider the new to be the better program. I know that position won't endear me to many fans of the original series. I'm a purist, myself, and I can't stand many of the remakes that have been produced recently (I still refuse to go see Will Ferrell's "Land of the Lost"). That doesn't mean that I can't like the new better than the old, though.

**Warning: Contains Spoilers** First of all, in this case you can hardly compare the two together. McGoohan's "Prisoner" was about a secret agent who resigned and was abducted by persons unknown until he would reveal the "true reason" for his resignation. Caviezel worked for a company apparently engaged in researching persons who possessed access to higher states of consciousness. In both series, the Village is a place to hold the Prisoner until he is feeling cooperative, but what "they" want from the Prisoner is different in each case. The new Village isn't even a village, per se; it's apparently some sort of astral projection in which the residents all share with the help of Number Two and his wife. In short, the two stories are similar in name only.

This makes comparing the merits of the two stories vaguely like comparing Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series; some elements remain the same, some archetypes are common, but the plots, characters, and moral (the fundamentals of every story) are widely divergent. No one can doubt McGoohan's vision or creativity in what is rightly considered a masterpiece of the sci-fi/adventure genre; but his is not the only vision out there. Should the nominal aspects of McGoohan's "Prisoner" have been appropriated for the new version? Maybe, maybe not; but it certainly wouldn't be the first time a beloved series has been "updated" for a new generation (see Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, et al).

As a consequence of the new nature of the Village, some elements were necessarily eliminated or adjusted. First of all, the nature of Number Two has significantly changed. Before, Number Two was an administrator/warden tasked with extracting information from the "Villagers", including Number Six (McGoohan). To keep the focus on Number Six, every time Number Two failed to learn why Six resigned, a new Number Two was chosen to replace him. Some few Two's managed to retain their position longer than others, but all eventually failed when faced with Six's iron will.

McKellen's Number Two, though, could hardly be replaced so easily or so readily. Running a prison, even one disguised as a village, is quite a different task than controlling another plane of consciousness; especially one that is ever-expanding. When Caviezel's character proves his resilience, rather than continuing in their efforts merely to integrate him in society, it is apparently decided to anoint him as the new Number Two. McKellen's character, after all, is getting on in years, and he would need a successor eventually, anyway. This arrangement, though integral to the new storyline, places far more emphasis on Two than in the original series, even to the point of giving him a wife and son. Such an emphasis calls for the kind of acting that only a man of McKellen's caliber could deliver, which has led many to claim that Two upstages Six in this version. Apparently, though, that's how it's supposed to be.

By the way, if you've noticed me using the word "apparently" a lot in connection to AMC's "Prisoner", you're right. I'm guessing at much of what takes place in the new series. There's more mystery in the new version; still, it's left me with fewer questions than the original series. For example, when "Number One" is finally revealed in McGoohan's series, I couldn't have been more confused. They never quite reveal the real reason why Number Six resigned, nor do they even make clear during the series whether there is a "real reason" or if his captors merely think there is. And though one can hardly fault how well the writers and creators worked with what they had (i.e. a 1960's working knowledge of science), some of the episodes dealing with surveillance, medical science, and especially hypnotism were rather hard to swallow.

Finally, fans of the original series like to say there's no way anyone could live up to McGoohan's performance as Number Six. As for myself, I couldn't care less. We expect each actor to approach roles differently, even when it's the same role. Daniel Craig was a far different James Bond than Sean Connery, but that didn't make either one "superior" to the other; merely different. And this can hardly be considered the "same role". When you consider all the ways in which the stories diverge, the motivations differ, and the distance between the aims, you can't expect any of the characters to adhere to the original. Was McGoohan's performance superior to Caviezel's? Perhaps; but only in the same sense that Peter O'Toole's performance as King Henry was superior to Richard Harris' performance as King George.

• Stephen Monteith (read the original review on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=186592026543 )

Surprisingly Okay

[thecursor2002 · 7/10 · 16 November 2009]

Yes, like everyone else, I too yelled and screamed at the TV when I saw the promo.

And yet, so far, it's not too bad and does indeed maintain the surreal depth of the original series.

It's not the original and Caviezel is nothing like the tough, single minded 6 of the Original (Patrick, where for art thou?) But the disjointed and sad new Six works for the disjointed and sad new series. These people don't know a real world, they only know this...illusion. Or is it an illusion? Or is it real? Or...what the hell is it? Is there a Number One? Are we all Prisoners? Are they Prisoners? Is there even a prison? That's the kind of question this show raises in your mind and it's the same set of questions we asked during the original show.

Part of the problem people seem to have with this show is less about what the old show was and more about what the old show was to THEM and that's a sad trap to fall into, always. For instance, the commentators keep bringing up the whole 'Danger Man' myth, a long debunked rumor, and using it as a nit pick. Why are they doing that? Because that's the way THEY want to remember it.

Go into this with an open mind, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Cling cultishly to the old and you'll hate it.

Yes remakes are a terrible idea and I'm going to hunt down the original Prisoner on DVD but honestly, of all the ways they might've screwed this up...this does not suck.

Another Awful Remake

[deerwalkby · 1/10 · 15 November 2009]

This remake of the old series just doesn't work: Where the old Prisoner series was surreal, the new one is existential. It is much more mean spirited and weirdly psychological, and very overbearingly totalitarian. Where in the old series the characters were mostly trying to maintain pleasantry and good manners, the new mini series has a much larger element of demagoguery and fear.

The look of the village, with the exception of Number Two's palace, is very hum drum, whereas the old series village really played up the dichotomy of looking like a quaint and charming little place, yet all you want to do is get away from it.

The story line is much weaker too: instead of a disillusioned former spy hero, we get the usual clueless computer geek being used by the evil corporation.

Also, greatly unappreciated were the crude remarks in the conversation between Number Two and the psychiatrists.

This new Prisoner is much more 1984, than an exploration of what you do with old spies.