THE PRISONER REMAKE REVIEWS
A special section of The Unmutual Website containing reviews of the AMC mini-series remake. Do you have any overall thoughts on the series? Contact TUW and see your views also published on this page.
Click HERE for the main news page for all the latest news.
PUBLISHED REVIEWS:
TUW READERS' THOUGHTS:
"Being a huge prisoner fan, talking and explaining it to any that is
interested, I convinced a group of 14 to get together for the unveiling of
the new one. After several repeats of "It'll get better, just wait."
I woke up after dozing off to find everyone else a sleep as well. This show
would have never been watched after the first episode if it were not for the
title. I was able to convince 9 to watch the next episode. What a mistake.
Maybe if we were still in our twenties, we could have gotten drunk and enjoyed
it, not sure. Anyway it was a repeat and off to sleep we all went again. My
three sons are the only ones that endured the rest of the episodes and the
repeat, desperatly trying to find any redeeming qualities. The consensus is
clear, this was a flop! The only thing it is worth is a treasure hunt of looking
for Prisoner similarities. However it is not enough to keep one awake without
some sort of external assitance. Rest in peace, Patrick McGoohan, it is probably
a good thing that you missed it."
Gary Pike, USA
"Recently I viewed all six hours of The Prisoner remake, two hours a
day over three days, just as it was aired. Being totally familiar with the
original series, first viewed in 1968 when I was 17 years old, I knew the
premise of what I was about to see…or so I thought. Adjectives that
describe my first impression: convoluted, sluggish, confusing, dark and puzzling.
In short, “W-H-Y-?”
After the first two episodes, I had to re-watch the first ten minutes of Arrival, just to be sure I hadn’t missed something…like an opening sequence that would set the stage for the story. Right…there was none. So for anyone unfamiliar with the original series, one probably spent the first hour totally puzzled and confused as the story is just too complex or intricate to understand easily.
Occasional visual references to the original series were easily recognizable, such as the pennyfarthing bicycle in the seedy night club. The ever-present (desert) sands could represent Portmeirion’s waterless estuary so familiar in the original series. With several more viewings, one might even draw new allegorical parallels to the original series and to life in the 21st century.
The redeeming factor of the first two episodes, and actually, the entire series, was the brilliant performance of Sir Ian McKellen as Number Two, who could easily hold his own with the likes of Leo McKern from the original series. From start to finish, the New Number Two’s performance was spellbinding, which could not be said for James Caviezel’s Number Six.
The new Number Six lacked the charisma and dry wit of Patrick McGoohan’s character. True, in 1968 I was a teen smitten with a handsome, underdog hero. Being just a few years older and much wiser now, age might be why I was more taken with Ian McKellen’s character. It was absolutely essential to remain totally focused on the action and dialog when trying to follow the confusing thread of a story line. The rapid and too-frequent switch between The Village and New York City, between dreams and reality, was annoying and confusing. At the end of two hours, I was completely baffled about many things I had seen. The Towers (9-11?)…I never figured out what they had to do with anything, except to represent Number Six’s thoughts about “the other place” and his previous life. The Statue of Liberty might have been a better choice. References to Michael’s/Number Six’s previous employer, Summakor, was also puzzling since I had never heard of this company (and it does exist!), or what they do. (Note: at www.amctv.com they actually provide a link to that company, and suddenly, things made a lot more sense. Check it out!)
Six long hours later, with several characters murdered or otherwise dead by accident or suicide, I was still completely puzzled as to “what’s it all about”. Thankfully, at www.amctv.com I could read complete episode recaps, each with a most thoughtful disclaimer at the top warning that the write-up contained spoilers for specific episodes, in case one didn’t want to know the outcome. Amazingly enough, as puzzled as I was, I realized I wasn’t crazy, and that I had actually absorbed most of what I had seen in each episode. The recaps were great, with links to each character, with further insight as to who they were within the story. After reading the recaps, viewing the photos and learning more about the new remake, I found myself with a desire to re-watch the new Prisoner to see what I missed the first time through. That second viewing was slightly more interesting.
Certainly there was no joy in the New Village and absolutely nothing charming or appealing about the cookie-cutter type homes and hostile desert surroundings. The original idyllic (Portmeirion) Village disguised its dark side beneath beautiful flowers and fountains whereas the new Village looked just as ominous as it really was, full of black holes, murder, homosexuality, drug abuse and suicide.
It is definitely NOT Patrick McGoohan’s “Prisoner”. It IS TV viewing designed for the thinking person and NOT mindless fluff where everything is cut and dried, black and white, with a happily-ever-after ending. After six hours I was left with more questions than answers (sound familiar?). Much of the new Prisoner was confusing, lacked dialog and was reliant upon rapid-fire visual effects. I expect anyone without knowledge of the original series would have switched off before the end of the first episode. While sometimes boring, I did find it challenging to pick out links to the original, and that’s what kept me tuned in. However, I was not left with the same burning desire to see the “next episode” as I once experienced so many years ago.
I doubt there will be a huge rush of Prisoner fans booking a holiday
to the filming location of the New Village in the Namibian desert, South Africa.
BCNU!"
Jean M Orcutt, USA
"I was disappointed with the new 'Prisoner' TV series; we were told it is a 'reimagining' of the series, in that case why have they used a character so clearly intended to be that of the old Number Six (complete with piped blazer and an apartment hardly changed since the Sixties!) and copied at least two scenes almost verbatim from the original series (the taxi ride and the map-buying scene)?
Comparisons with the classic series are discouraged; but having used the title, and quite a lot of the imagery from the original programme (including 'Rover') whether they like it or not, the makers will have to accept this will be held up against McGoohan's original. They should have made something else if they were not keen on comparisons.
I found the series tough going throughout; the pacing is slow, you're not
given a reason to care about this man ('6') since you don't really know why
he is in this situation or what he is doing there, until much later in the
series. On top of that, he (Jim Caviezel) lacks the dynamic screen presence
of a McGoohan, and the constant use of flashbacks to New York (where he lived
previously) are just annoying. His character is actually somewhat 'emo' -
you don't believe in his ability to stand up to whatever is thrown at him.
The real star is Ian McKellen as '2'; he alone has the screen presence lacking
in just about everyone else in the
cast and it is easy to see why they kept the same man as '2' throughout. But
the programme is supposed to be called 'The Prisoner', not 'The Jailer'; in
keeping one man as the main adversary the producers have thrown away the main
concept of the old series: not knowing exactly who you're up against. The
other big problem is the unrelenting darkness of the series; there is very
little comic relief here and that makes for difficult viewing. You endure
it, you do not enjoy it.
The original had much that stuck in the mind, a truly iconic series. Think
of The Village (the real one, Green Dome and all), Rover, the mini-mokes,
the Lotus, the coloured capes and even the modified Albertus lettering seen
throughout. Not to mention the music and those penny-farthings, when you think
of that programme so much springs to mind. Not so this one, its Village is
bland with identikit houses, dull Morris Minors and other old vehicles, people
dressed relatively conservatively and the Village logo has swapped the penny-farthing
for what looks like a blancmange! The use of Rover appears contrived, as though
they had to include it just to remind viewers 'hey, this is The Prisoner'.
All in all a fan of the old series will probably feel used, having watched
this series as they've taken a few elements of the old series and cobbled
it into a plot which, without the use of that title
and those elements, would not stand up on its own.
McGoohan, had he lived to see it, would certainly have hated the way the producers had introduced an apparent gay affair between 11-12 (the son of '2') and another Villager. He would definitely have hated the seedy-looking nightclub which 11-12 frequented, and he'd not have approved of the behaviour of '6' around two of the women in the series either (!)
The original was a product of its time, which was carried along by the irresistible
driving force that was McGoohan. This series has tried to recreate the same
magic in a different era, but by committee. There's no single driving force
pulling it along and so the experience was always going to be a let-down.
Ultimately it's just another mildly interesting mini-series, once you strip
away all the Prisoner imagery. Watch only if you must see how they've reimagined
the Village and the concept, but don't expect to be riveted."
Ronnie Soo
"I spent the last three nights at my home in Canada watching the remake. I am going to give it passing grade. Is it the original. No way. But having watched most of it a 2nd time (AMC has already started repeating it), I have gained a respect for what they’ve done with the new mini-series. Of course, insider jokes helped soothe over some of slower parts. My favorite was Number 2 letting out a small chuckle when he sees the Penny fathering hanging from the ceiling of a Village club.
The new Prisoner is not the rebel of old. Even when the old Number Six was drugged up, hypnotized, punched in the face…he always had that “…I’m a free man, you S.O.B.” thing still going for him. Want to know why I resigned? Blow me!! That’s not what the new Number Six is about…and this is where I congratulate the producers on deciding to take a different approach. There’s part of me that want to see a Patrick McGoohan clone….but I know that would ultimately be unsatisfying. I don’t want to go into the plot just in case people are reading this who haven’t watched it yet. However, I was satisfied with the answers about the The Village. In fact, I even felt that the answer tied in some manner to the theories about what was going through the original Prisoner’s head in Fall Out.
If I have one complaint, it has to do with some of the camera work. Don’t
get me wrong. The Prisoner (original) was always at its best visually when
we were looking at Portmerion in the daylight (the famous human chess match
comes to mind). But there are way too many lingering shots. I started to lose
count how many times the camera would swoop around Number Two’s comatose
bed-riden wife. She’s asleep. Got something to do with the pills. There’s
more to her then meets the eye. OK…got that after the 2nd swoop. Knowing
how it all ends, my favorite scene was slightly twisted in its meaning…but
two thumbs way up for the scene with Number Six, Sixteen and the Tour Bus
Woman running towards the beach."
Tim Perrin
"The PRISONER remake is far from brilliant, but not horrible either.
I'd give it two stars out of four -- average and so-so all the way through.
While it comes nowhere near the brilliance of the original, it's not a total
disaster either. Making this version vastly different was the best route the
creators could have taken. It exists completely separate from the original,
and therefore doesn't ruin or diminish what came before. The producers' respect
for McGoohan was evident -- they obviously didn't want to tamper with his
vision of the premise.
There are many slow spots throughout the six hours where I found my interest
slipping. "Dense and murky" were two phrases I read in various reviews
elsewhere that I agree with completely. At times, the remake is a chore to
get through. With some careful editing, it would have made a much better two-hour
film. The disjointed flashbacks to Six's post-resignation/pre-Village life
are a bit annoying (but thankfully tie together in the end). Likewise, the
script could have used more humor -- everybody seemed so serious or depressed.
The acting is forgettable; most of the cast doesn't stand out. Ian McKellen
was good, but Jim Caviezel barely registers. His yell of "I Am Not A
Number!" just doesn't cut it.
There's not much of a title sequence nor much of a theme either -- just some
generic-sounding suspense music. And apart from sepia-tinted silent films
of the 1920s, it's probably the brownest, tannest production ever made. They
should have splashed more color throughout the Village. Likewise, the characters
clothes were dull; they had no particular "Village style" like the
original costumes did.
But the new story did keep me interested enough to follow it through. The
finale answers a lot of questions, yet still keeps much obscure. There are
also some nice subtle references to the original scattered throughout the
episodes. And let's be grateful that McGoohan turned down the producers' request
for a cameo. If he had agreed, it would have been a depressing final screen
appearance. Perhaps a better role for him would have been as a "former
No.2" who occasionally shows up to advise McKellen.
But one has to ask: did the world need another version of THE PRISONER? Definitely
not. New viewers will find the premise redundant in today's post-MATRIX/LOST
pop culture landscape (two productions that were strongly influenced by the
original to begin with). In fact, the remake seems to be a combination of
THE MATRIX and that other "Prisoner-esque" production of recent
years, THE TRUMAN SHOW. New viewers seeing this version first, will probably
end up liking the original better should they ever see it. Meanwhile, admirers
of the original are automatically condemning the remake just on the basis
of its existence alone.
After viewing the final episode, the entire production seemed fade from my
mind almost immediately. It doesn't have the staying-power of the original,
and is ultimately forgettable. So, after all these years of wondering about
what a PRISONER remake would be like, we can now relax. Our beloved original
is in no danger of being displaced from its throne..."
Tom Mayer, USA
"I lived in London up untill 5 years ago, I now live in Canada.
Saw the original many times, have it on DVD. Miniseries was shown last week
here. The remake must be thought of not as a remake, but as a continuation.
Then as the it unfolds it makes sense and is not a dissapointment. Nuff said?"
Eric Enders
This "reimagining" is heavy on style but light on substance: the
most (and only) fun this series offers is spotting references to the original
series in the sets. Three hours into this six-hour mess, we finally get clues
about who Six is, and hints at why he might be important -- facts that the
original series tidily handled within the first fifteen minutes of "Arrival"
-- but by then it's too little, too late. Caviezel's Six is thuddingly dull,
and McKellen's Two is toothless and harmless as he dodders around tending
to domestic affairs. Do yourself a favor and watch your favorite six episodes
of the original series instead of this jerky, discontinuous mess.
Mike Clemens.