Customer Reviews

The Prisoner (Miniseries)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(32)

 

 

Those who have commented about this series without seeing the original do not know whereof they write. The original series went beyond mere entertainment (and it was very entertaining) but also stimulated the viewer into thinking about subjects such as illegal incarceration, autonomy, the illusion of democracy, identity, education, truth, life, death, manipulation, propaganda, loyalty, war and violence (as well as innumerable other topics). As a youth, I was profoundly influenced by the exploration of the concepts in this series.

Plus, I loved the car. Rover was cool too.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be remotely influenced by any of the ideas in this mini-series remake. In fact, I couldn't find any profound ideology in this mini-series.

If one had not seen the original series, this new rendition would have had to have been completely incomprehensible.

The fundamentals of the show were missing. Number Six was not defiant or angry, merely befuddled. Number Two was not desperately seeking information from Number Six while under the scrutiny of an anonymous Number One. He was also acting aimlessly.

Everyone was wandering around as if they were in a dream (wow - a spoiler!)

After waiting so long for something to be done with the Prisoner property; and with so many hard core fans craving to view a remake, I am surprised this weak series was the best effort that the entertainment industry could muster.

For better alternatives for those of you who would love to see more shows similar to the original Prisoner, I would recommend:

1) Danger Man (TV Series)
2) Secret Agent (TV Series)
3) Kings and Desperate Men (VHS Movie with some familiar faces)
4) Shattered Visage (Graphic Novel sequel)
5) Nowhere Man (TV Series with a similar flow to the Prisoner)
6) Sleuth (with Olivier & Caine - a movie about mind games)
7) The Game (with M. Douglas - another mind game movie)
8) The Prisoner Original Movie Scripts (Two Volumes also containing original series material which was not used)

It is a pity that producers have waited forty years for the deaths of Patrick McGoohan and Leo McKern, just to insure that they would not appear in any sequels. The graphic novel "Shattered Visage" was created 20 years ago with appropriately aged Numbers 2 & 6, undoubtedly with a movie sequel in mind which would have included these beloved actors. Another missed opportunity was that McGoohan's own sequel was not used.

Perhaps in forty years hence a better sequel will be made.

Not so much a re-make, more a completely different series all together, with some common threads, such as the individual vs the system. Some homage to the original - the obvious like rover, and the almost subliminal in visibility like the penny farthing and the Caterham car.

Bleaker, and also more visually stunning from the location.

As there is only one 2 and one 6, so we see a lot more of what motivates 2. Not so much of a relationship 2 with 6 though more development between 2 and family members. The personalities are very different as well. Pre village, 6 is an observer rather than a field agent, so fewer fist fights and less running around, more watching to find what is going on.

The original had more impact, probably because there was almost nothing like it around. This version comes after all kinds of film and TV series exploring this area, so we are more used to it. In the original, it was apparent fairly early what was wanted - answering one resignation question would lead to eventual loyalty or corruption of the individual. Here there is much more of a mystery of what 2 wants from 6, and indeed the motivations may change gradually and for good reasons in hindsight.

This series wraps up more tightly - seems like the script ending was known before completion, while in the original the writers had little idea of how to finish it.

4 stars - a good series but there is more competition in the genre so harder to be completely new.

This was a waste of time to watch. While I am a fan of the 60's version, I tried to judge this mini-series as a new re-telling. I so much wanted to like it. The acting is terribly wooden and the pace is incredibly slow. I found myself not caring why things were happening to "6" in my struggle to understand what was happening. A murky storyline doomed this project. I cannot recommend this program.

The original The Prisoner - Complete Series Megaset (40th Anniversary Edition) TV series and I are about the same age, so perhaps that has a bearing on why I could relate to its warning about becoming just a number - I've seen it happen over the course of my lifetime.

The new AMC mini-series was quite a disappointment. Without spoiling it for anyone who wants to watch it, here's my review:

This time out, AMC gives us the answers. We find out how the scenes in The Village and New York are related. No need for us to come up with our own theories as to "what's it all about?" I found myself more interested in Number Two than Number Six. This Number Six doesn't seem very passionate about his desire to escape and I found myself not really caring if he did or not. The ending, although a possibility brought up in the final episode of the original series, completely ruined the mini-series for me.

How The Village came to exist and how the inhabitants ended up there was quite a stretch for me. It definitely made this series more sci-fi than drama. I did enjoy the many nods to the original series, the updated Village wardrobe, Ian McKellen's performance, and the improved Rover.

I can't see this series having the timeless appeal of the original, but perhaps a younger viewer would disagree with me.

If you're a fan of the original, you'll probably watch this and be disappointed like I was. Since this was made to target fans of the original series, I'd say it was a wasted effort.

I have never written a review on here, because usually I think someone out there has covered the respected topic sufficiently. This is an exception. And, for those who are genuinely interested in knowing more, please read on. If you are going to flame me for writing a boring review of a boring show, then stop right here. Save yourself the time, you surely have more important things to do.
Anyone knows there is a difference between an 'homage' and a remake, inspiration versus redux. The writer of this Prisoner series certainly knows this, and those familiar with the original show did not watch weekly to see if the Prisoner would 'escape' the Village. There was certainly a lot of harsh criticism for the ending of that show, and that vitriol reminds me of some of the lambasting on here. Personally I think the writing and the show's creators and actors deserve better than is being dished out here. Although my first take on coming away from it was that I felt a little emotionally betrayed, I realized, after thinking that over quite a bit, that that was essentially the point. To go beyond entertainment, or escapism, and to compel the viewer to dwell on a an uncomfortable reality, I think is one of the themes. Without giving it away, you have to reflect from the outset, 'what would I do if confronted with this situation?' and 'Does it really matter if all of this (society, relationships, feelings, the outside world as we know it) is real, or is it sufficient to just *believe* that it is real. People become extremely heated about this topic, not least of all because it goes somewhat to religious ideologies on the one hand, and issues of authority on the other. Who decides what I know? Who is in charge? Does it matter if this is really true?
Of course, trying to reach a blasé audience with sophisticated questions like these is a tall order, and so science fiction (if that is what this show turns out to be)tends to couch them in allegory and storytelling. If its over the audience's head, then maybe the writer is to blame for being overambitious, trying to do too much in too little a narrative framework. Personally, I think the show (yes, this miniseries) is a minor masterpiece, and I think posterity will be rather kinder to it than some of the base reviews I have seen here.
The most tedious, and yet telling, critique runs along the lines of "I want those x hours of my life back." They felt like they've been had. They know the bitter disappointment of thinking something was worthwhile, only to decide for themselves it wasn't. But it goes further. There was something perhaps *immoral* about the show's doing this to them. (They thought) it held out the promise of being so much more. It was going to enlighten, educate, and entertain. It would be unforgettable. And so on, and so on. Has any one of you out there been disappointed like this? Was it by a person, an ideology, a philosophy, a course in school, a dead-end job, what? And yet, I believe this show framed precisely that question, in its own way. After thinking this show over, I think it was not only worth watching the first time, but multiple times. Some people don't think its worthwhile or instructive to observe the selling out of the soul, maybe that's just hitting too close to home for a show (any show) that's supposed to make me forget about the daily routine.
Was it immoral? People, it's television. You know what you are getting into, don't you? No one promised an exhilarating, scintillating joie de vivre, with singing, dancing, and a great love story, or alternately, easily identifiable heroes, antagonists, and some viscerally satisfying sex and violence. Isn't there enough of that already?
This show is not for those who possess all the answers and a certitude in life, where you've got it all mapped out, you are sure of your place in the world, that it is immutable, and just the right slice of heaven assuredly awaits you in the afterlife. If this is you, this show will surely irritate you.
However, if you are troubled for reasons quite uncertain, perhaps suspecting that there is more going on in the world, and in your life, than what is revealed to you; that people feel justified to lie on a routine basis, and that business is premised on selling us on the idea that they act in everyone's best interests; that you strive to avoid the notion of a unified conspiracy, but it always seems that controlling the populus and maintaining clear authority is the ultimate governmental/societal agenda, well, have I got a show for you. But please don't think the show is smugly self-satisfied, or esoteric and obfuscative solely to be a riddle. It's not really meant to be a riddle, really. And it's not all that smug or self-satisfied either. It may get a little esoteric, so what. It's certainly not impossible either.
Dystopias aren't meant to be fun. The question here is, how did this happen to us?

If you've read to the end of this review, it's likely because you want to know whether this is worth buying or renting. Honestly, the show requires some level of concentration and reflection. And patience. How do you like your shows? Easy and breezy? That's not this. Nor is it a grinding downer. There are moments of quirkiness and wry humor also. It is clever, on many levels. Those who hate it have a right to, of course, but their reasons, to me it seems, are so uninformative. Of course it's not like the original show. But oddly, it does work as a modern counterpart, in my opinion. It's daring, risky, and knows that sometimes it just doesn't seem to all add up. That's where you come in. Do you trust yourself to be fair and open-minded, to give something like this show a hearing without making demands upon it, or must the show prove that its worthwhile entertainment in the first 15 minutes? Do I have to make the same promise to you?
Was this review worth reading? Or do you want these last few minutes of your life back from me? Sorry, I'll have to be selfish on this one and say I warned you at the outset.
Maybe it should be described as 'serious fun.' That's when you delve into something a little more sophisticated with the expectation that there may be some obstacles along the way, but the author does have a point of view, a statement of artistry to make. And that it is worthwhile to explore this with the artist. This is how one should approach the Prisoner, in my opinion.

I'm a dedicated follower of the original 1960s Brit series and I found this remake to be excellent. I came to this series with no expectations and certainly didn't want to compare it to the original which was a profound statement of the state of the world at the time. Like the old series this new series is full of Illuminati symbolism (e.g. the all-seeing eye in the pyramid - 'be seeing you' etc) quarantine images and the dream-scape where the boundaries between reality and illusion are blurred. So although the original was a reflection of the time the re-make is a prediction of the future. I loved the ending. There's a lot to like about this series but I don't think you can really appreciate it unless you let go of the old series and view this for itself - you won't be disappointed.

... with a nod to PHILIP K DICK.

I have been a HUGE fan of Patrick McGoohan since I was a kid in the 60s via SECRET AGENT/DANGER MAN, was blown away by THE PRISONER at the age of 11, have turned may people on to that series since then and attended PORTMERICON, the annual gathering of the show's "Appreciation Society" SIX OF ONE, held on the grounds of the Hotel Portmerion itself in Northern Wales.

Yeah, I'm a fan.

Except in name & some affectations, this mini-series ain't THE PRISONER, in the same way that the movie J.J. Abrams directed in 2009 ain't STAR TREK! Abrams directed a damn fine film, but it's more derivative of a certain 1977 film directed by George Lucas than anything dreamed up by Gene Roddenberry or his successors.

In the same respect, this mini-series isn't like anything that Patrick McGoohan might have dreamed up, either.

This does not mean that it's bad. It means that as viewers, we need to re-think our perspective & perhaps discard the prerequisite expectations that the title implies, before passing judgment.

The first time I viewed this mini-series, I was trying to make a connection to the original and could not. I think that this inability to connect is what has disappointed most of the nay-sayers. I wanted to see it again, but this time, taken in the context of it being a science-fiction story on its own terms, without any expectations of connecting to the original 1960s series.

This was almost as big a challenge as it was to re-watch BLADE RUNNER without the voice-over to see if I could arrive at different conclusions about the characters. After having seen it numerous times with the voice-over dialogue burned into my brain, to try NOT to have the insights that Deckard imparts in the voice-over creep into your consciousness while "seeing it again for the first time" ain't easy. It cannot be achieved 100%, but it can be achieved to a degree, absolutely.

Since I'd only viewed The Prisoner Mini-Series only once, was confused by that viewing and wanted to forget most of it, this was an easier task.

Without expectations of an overall similarity to the 1960s show, the mini-series is free to stand on its own merits, which it ably does. I couldn't help but be reminded of author Philip K Dick's themes of what makes one human, and what is reality. And like David Cronenberg's VIDEODROME, you wonder what is real, what is hallucination and at what point does the hallucination (or dream) manifest itself as reality?

When I later saw INCEPTION, the "re-imagining" of THE PRISONER was in its proper context: Both use the same science fiction concept, but toward different ends via different themes.

So, if you liked INCEPTION, this mini-series may be for you.

If you're a dedicated fan of Patrick McGoohan's THE PRISONER, just be amused at how they've borrowed some ideas from that series and you may be surprised at how much might you enjoy it. I remember the first dozen times I saw the original series' finale FALL OUT. "What a cheat!", I remember thinking. Over time I realized that the key to appreciating this episode (& I know about the chaos & hurried conditions under which it was produced) required abandoning my expectations of a nice, clean ending to the show.

If anything, THE PRISONER of the 1960s was about breaking free of conformity, especially those "prisons" which we impose upon ourselves, especially our views, perspectives and expectations. McGoohan's Number 6 might be disappointed that the detractors of this new mini-series may have forgotten that.

Be seeing you!

Here are a few things this TV series was not:

1. A continuation of the original story.

2. A faithful remake of the original show.

If you are looking for the adventures of Number Six as presented by Patrick McGoohan with a new cast, you will absolutely be disappointed by this series, as it does not do that or try to do it.

If you are expecting a sequel to the original series, again, you will be disappointed. It is very clear that this show and the original show share essentially no continuity.

That said, this is an extremely intelligently written television show with many themes that are highly relevant to the modern, digital world. I can't fully explain the plot without spoiling significant parts of the plot, but suffice it to say that this is a TV show with a lot to say, with very interesting characters, and with a very entertaining plot.

Yes, nobody could ever be the original #6. McGoohan's dogged, clever, steely-eyed defiance cannot be matched by any modern actor, however this show does not ask its lead to try. The much more human character played by James Caviziel is very interesting in his own right, as is Sir Ian's fascinating #2.

You can have your love for the original series and still enjoy this as its own, and very clever and intersting thing.

People angrily punching out "one star" reviews really need to think this over. Are you seriously giving an interesting, intelligent mini-series one star just because it wasn't a good remake or didn't measure up possibly the greatest TV show of all time?

In a world in which Jersey Shore and The Real Housewives of Insane Screaming Rich Person County exist this is not a one star show. Let go of your preconceptions and your nerd cred at having seen and understood the original and look at this for what it is: a smart, tightly written, well acted sci-fi mini series staring some very major acting talents and beautifully shot to boot.

If it matters, I was not a huge fan of the original series. I liked it, sure, but I never joined a fan club or tried to figure out the meaning of the bicycle. I'll even allow that the final episode made no sense to me.

I guess you could say this new version is a remake in the sense that if something is good enough to do over, the second time will probably be inferior. The original was challenging, thought provoking and frequently quite funny. This new show is about a guy who is being held against his will and wants to leave. If there is any more to it than that, I missed it. Its also quite slow.

I think the magic number here is "2". The best episodes of the original had the creator of the show matching wits with another actor of equal heft. Having these two locked in battle was enough. In this new production Ian McKellen has no real opponent. Not really. He's a joy to watch but for the rest its amateur night.

If nothing else, I hope this puts to rest the idea that plugging in a fine English actor (Alec Guiness, Patrick Stewart, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, etc, etc, etc) into a comic book turns it into something grand and complex. It just exposes the weaknesses of everybody else.

So, folks in TV land, go ahead and remake Star Wars. Its a simple story. But don't try to remake 2001 A Space Odyssey because its too complex, ok?

I'm glad that the producers of this mini-series opted not do faithfully remake the original series. The original is a classic and I can watch it anytime. This is a different take on the premise, and unlike the original, this one had and end in site from the beginning.

No one really understands exactly what the meaning is behind the original series ending. Patrick McGoohan wasn't talking, and even if he did know, he took that secret to the grave with him.

So, here we have a completely different location, yet it still feels like the location in a way from the original. You're trapped, yet it's like a perfect place; why would you want to leave?

The same issues of personal freedom are addressed here, but also with an eye to personal privacy in our own world. The implications from this ending still leaves me thinking and I am happy to watch this over and over, just like the old one. I do regret that this has not been released on Blu-Ray in the U.S. yet.

Jim Caviezal doesn't have the acting chops this role requires. This is one point for sure that is difficult not to make a comparison with McGoohan's performance as Mcgoohan had an imense acting range that few can touch, but at least get somebody not so stiff all the time. I don't know how he does it, but Caviezel comes off as cardboard and sanctimopnious at the same time, but never engaging. McKellen is as good a Number Two as any from the original. Hayley Atwell is perfectly suited to her role.

I visited Portmerion recently, solely because of my fascination with the original series. An employee there explained to me that it wouldn't have been possible for them to film there now for the remake as they are always booked with guests. Now I want to visit Swakupmund in Africa; it just looks so cool.

It's true that many were dissapointed with this remake, but people's expectations are not always based on reality. I say, watch it again with an open mind. Get over your dissapointment that it didn't meet your expectations and try to see it for what it really is. Try to see it as if the original never existed; go into to it without any expectations, good or bad. When something becomes old it becomes sacred in many people's minds and hearts. You know what? This is just a t.v. show, as was the old one from over forty years ago.