Follow Zap2it:
'The Prisoner' review: Six of one ...
Twitter
Google
If you're planning to watch "The Prisoner" on AMC starting Sunday, you should also plan not to know quite what's happening for much of its running time.That's part of the point -- a remake of the famously inscrutable 1960s series could hardly call itself "The Prisoner" if it weren't heavily invested in messing with your mind. But while the six-hour miniseries eventually comes to something of a coherent point -- about the nature of freedom in a world where our every move can be monitored -- it takes a good many bewildering detours along the way.
But if "What the hell is going on?" is not enough to sustain your interest over the full six hours, and you're not into making detailed comparisons between the new effort and its predecessor, then you might be out of luck. The new "Prisoner" boasts some spectacular production design and a devilishly good performance from Ian McKellen, but that wasn't enough to keep my focus from wandering at times.
The miniseries isn't a faithful remake of Patrick McGoohan's original, but that's not a bad thing. "The Prisoner" of the 1960s has its rightful place in TV's pantheon, but with its Cold War paranoia, deep distrust of the counterculture and James Bond-meets-Salvador Dali production design, it's also very much of its time. The new version's writer, Bill Gallagher, director Nick Hunnam and the production team made a smart choice in not trying simply to replicate the old show.
The framework, however, remains the same: After resigning from his post at a security firm, a man (Jim Caviezel) wakes up outside the Village (most of the miniseries was filmed at a resort in Namibia) with no clue as to how he arrived or what he's doing there. Everyone in the Village goes by a number rather than a name -- the newcomer is christened Six -- no one seems to think there's any world outside the Village, and they're all in the thrall (and under the thumb) of Two (McKellen), the man in charge.
Unlike seemingly everyone else there, though, Six refuses to accept his fate. He still has flashes of his former life and vows to escape, using shimmering visions of two towers (unquestionably meant to evoke the World Trade Center) on the horizon as his beacon.
The story puts Caviezel in a bit of a quandary. His Six isn't nearly as fiery as McGoohan's was -- alternately bewildered, defiant and resigned, he's a little bit like Neo in "The Matrix" before he takes the red pill: a bit of a blank slate who absorbs things that happen to him rather than making things happen himself.
McKellen gets the far meatier role as Two, the Village's semi-benevolent despot. He's a fully rounded character with a wife (Rachael Blake) and son ("Twilight: New Moon's" Jamie Campbell Bower) who, we eventually learn, has very personal reasons for wanting to preserve the Village as it is and knows the threat that a relatively free mind like Six's can pose.
McKellen also brings out the best in Caviezel; their scenes together have a snap to them that Six's other interactions -- with cabdriver 147 (Lennie James, "Jericho"), Village doctor 313 (Ruth Wilson) and a woman from his prior life (Hayley Atwell) -- don't.
One of the smart choices Gallagher makes is to show us glimpses of Six's former life, where he worked for a company that monitors spy-camera footage from around the world. It's presented in such a way as to make the viewer wonder (along with Six) which place is really real.
Six's old life and the Village eventually come together in a way that speaks to both the way privacy has eroded in the 21st century and the notion that broken people should be fixed, even if they don't want to be. Inasmuch as a story like this can have a definite endpoint, this "Prisoner" has one. Whether that will please die-hard fans of the original is up for debate, but again, it's probably a wise choice not to ape the controversial ending of the '60s show.
As a meditation on how free our free will really is, "The Prisoner" works quite well. I just wish it had dispensed with a few of the trippy head-fakes along the way.
----
"The Prisoner" premieres at 8 p.m. ET Sunday on AMC with parts one and two. Parts three and four air at 8 p.m. Monday, and the conclusion airs at 8 p.m. Tuesday.
Follow Zap2it on Twitter for the latest TV, movie and celebrity news.
Related:
'The Prisoner' to 'Lost': Pop-culture head trips
Follow Zap2it on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest news and buzz
Zap2it Elite Sheet Must Reads from the Web's In-Crowd
Our Partners
Can't wait. I'll BE SEEING IT! http://www.instantrimshot.com/
This should be a fun ride
Be Seeing you...
Some of the other things missing in the new version; wit, sophistication, repartee, nonchalance, nuance, subtlety.
Replaced by; thudding obviousness, simultaneously totally confusing yet utterly simplistic, messages sign-posted so predictably the actors might as well have post-its on their foreheads.
Be seeing you!
Well, there's no way it can be as bad as V, the other cult TV remake currently airing... or can it?
YAWN!
As someone that has been a fan of the original since it 1st aired in the U.S. (giving my age away) this ranks as one of the worst remakes ever. The 1st clue is that clues as to what was going on had to be given during the commercial breaks. Caviezel just isn't convincing when he protests that he is not a number. At times I felt like I was watching a video game: find this, go talk to so & so, go find something else, wash, rinse, repeat.
The difference is probably that Patrick McGoohan was personally invested in the production, writing & direction of the original. It was as much a work of art as it was a statement.
Any relation to the original is just a facade.
Sometimes I think it would be better for a reviewer of a remake, to not have seen the original.
I have never seen the original. So, I can't compare. But, I absolutely loved the first two hours of "The Prisoner" and Jim (6) was excellent!! I loved everything about the first two hours!
I think people who have seen any original show/movie, can be prejudiced of the remake and close their minds to what is happening in front of them.
I don't know if I will watch the original, but, I am curious. I don't think in any way that it could be better than this remake. It's like someone trying to convince me to watch the original "Titanic" movies ... it ain't going to cut it for me. I know some movies were better, back in the day, but I wish people would open their eyes to what is in front of them and not compare. Give it a chance. I think if you watched your original again, you may see it lacking in much and not find it as great.
So sit back and go with the ride and enjoy what they have done with this remake.
Awesome show!!
I think the show is great,good to see Jim back on the screen,where has he been all this time, never seen the original so cannot compare too much, sometimes I think they ought not to get into the remakes of some shows they are better left alone.same goes with movies.
Without McKellen, this would be a serious yawn. In making The Prisoner palatable to modern viewers, the producers are dooming it to failure. The Village is absurd; it's political and psychological underpinnings are by nature murky and not well understood. We are strangers to ourselves: our need to belong is just as strong as our need for self-expression. So, even in a democracy, we often end up as our own worst enemies. The original series thrived on this ambiguity. Six's anger and confusion just cannot be reduced to libertarian ideology.
Alright you guys.. I have YET to see the show (I'm without cable) But, noone needs to tell me that it's not as good as the original (case in point the remake of Kolchak: The Night Stalker a few years back) ugh, REMAKES... at best, they're not as good, at worst, they slap the face of the original (Why can't they come up with ORIGINAL ideas??) My mother once told me that Hollywood only has 44 ideas, before roman numerals are used or remakes are done. Long Live the ORIGINAL Prisoner.... Be seeing you!
I think if anyone has seen the original and liked it, good thing. It was probably a good show. But if youre gonna knock it before you try it, then you are even more close- minded than everyone else who has seen the remake and the original, stating that it plainly BLOWED cause it wasnt to par with the original.
Some people say dont change something if its allready good the way it is. I say, "take it to another level" maybe it was way ahead of its time and somebody noticed that, therefore pushing the idea forward. Sentimental to the ones who were there in the late 60s, yes, but a modern break through for those of today. Everybody wins. Good show!