Related Sections: Opinion TV
What we love (and hate) about AMC's The Prisoner
The Prisoner, which premieres Sunday, Nov. 15, begins with a similar situation and theme as the 1967 British sci-fi spy classic, but in the end there's very little to tie the two together.
The original series, co-created by and starring Patrick McGoohan, ran for only 17 episodes. However, it became a classic that explored elements of individualism and social indoctrination through surreal storylines that made it a pioneer for sci-fi television.
While the new series begins especially strongly, this Prisoner isn't likely to become a classic anytime soon. Yes, the setup is close to the original, but it veers off quickly after that.
A man wakes up in the desert and eventually finds his way to the Village. In this version, the man, called Number Six, doesn't remember who he is and only knows that he wants to escape. And according to everyone he talks to, there is no place beyond the Village. However, Number Six is having flashes of another life, and in that life he resigned from his job.
Some of the reimagining works. Some of it, not so much. Here's what we loved and hated about the AMC reimagination of The Prisoner:
LOVE: Ian McKellen (you know, Gandalf from Lord of the Rings) is a fabulous Number Two. In the original series, Number Two was played by a revolving door of actors, which always kept Number Six on his toes, knowing that no matter how many times he defeated Number Two, there would always be another one waiting to take his or her place. In this Prisoner, the producers wisely decided that the six-hour miniseries would best be served by an amazing actor like McKellen. And he's easily the best thing about the mini, creating a character that is complex, mysterious and human. His scenes with his son are especially good and filled with heartbreak. McKellen lifts the mini far beyond what it would have been without him.
LIKE: Jim Caviezel does a good job as Number Six. He's intense, good-looking and watchable. No, he is not Patrick McGoohan. But, really, who is these days?
HATE: We meet Lucy (played by Hayley Atwell) originally in Number Six's flashbacks and piece by piece begin to learn a little about the company he resigned from and why he resigned. She may know more than she's telling Michael/Number Six. However, when it's all said and done, flashback-wise, we're kind of left with a shrug, since we never learn anything about her character's motivation. Beyond that, she looks enough like 313 (the doctor played by Ruth Wilson) that in the psychedelic flashbacks and Village misdirection it all gets confusing. Not the actress's fault, but it would have been nice to have more distinction between the two characters and some point to her character besides flashback exposition.
LOVE: The expansion of the Village may have an idyllic surface, but it has an unpleasant underbelly. The people in the Village have enough freedom to fall into many of the vices and bad choices people can make in real life. It adds a dimension to this world that makes it rich and interesting, and there seems to be more Village in every scene.
DIDN'T LIKE: Six doesn't remember anything. He doesn't know who he is, only that he wants to escape. Why does he want to escape? Why is he different from all the others? Why is he Number Six, instead of Number 600? Lots of questions, and not all them are going to be answered. The new series dispenses with the notion that Six was a spy and that he's been trapped by someone, maybe someone bad who's on the other side. He just becomes a confused guy.
HATE: The rovers (the big white balloon thingies that keep people from escaping). Let's face it, they were silly in the original, and they are just as silly in the new version. At least the original had the excuse of a tight budget. A little updating to make them more ominous would have been a good thing.
LOVE: The explanation of what is happening at the end of it all is actually fascinating. It doesn't entirely hold together, and there are story and character holes aplenty that are about as big as the holes that form around the Village. Arguably the mini does at least have an ending that somewhat makes sense (which, for most of us, the original can't claim).
CONFUSED BY: The middle of the mini is incredibly hard to follow. While the original wasn't always easy keep track of either, we always knew where Six stood as a character. This Prisoner is about two hours too long. Most of the middle could be lifted out, leaving the mini stronger.
HATE: In McGoohan's Prisoner, Six and Two were in a constant chess match. Six wanted to escape, and Two wanted to know why he resigned. In the new version, Six wants to escape, and Two... well, he wants something, but what it is is not clear until the very end. That lack of knowledge regarding Two's motivation presents a very gray area that prevents us from hanging on through the surrealness of it all. Then throw in another version of Six called Two of Six (could have just called him 12), and we're lost. The initial chess match between the two (or three?) peters out, leaving us with none of the fun and all of the what-the-hell puzzlement of the original.
IN THE END: We're disappointed. There's a great mini in here that would have worked better at four hours than six. The original had its disappointments, too, which most people don't remember because it was more than 40 years ago, and it's a classic, and it was brave, and it was brilliant even when it wasn't. The truth is that this Prisoner could never live up to the original, no matter what they did with it. It's just too bad the writer and producers didn't take the "reimaging" quite far enough. The mini could have been something special all on its own. It really could have been.
Are you ready for the new Prisoner?
By Carpe at 11:15 AM ON 11/13/09
Why do remakes always have to be reimaginings as well? What's wrong with just updating time periods, sets, locations, special effects, etc? Why do filmmakers always have to put their stamp on something just for the sake of it? AMC ruined the Andromeda Strain remake because they reimagined it. Looks like they did The Prisoner wrong as well.
By Photoprinter at 11:20 AM ON 11/13/09
Oh, well. Probably will watch it anyway. Not much else worth watching.
By sticman at 11:22 AM ON 11/13/09
wasnt the remake more along the lines following hte book more?
By MCP-001 at 11:27 AM ON 11/13/09
I'm surprised that Ms. Huddleston didn't tell us that they pulled back No. 1's hood to reveal Jim Caviezel.
Oh well...
By Carpe at 11:28 AM ON 11/13/09
@sticman
If you're talking about the AMC Andromeda Strain mini-series then no, the 1971 film was closer to the book. The AMC mini-series was a "reimagining."
By rj472 at 11:44 AM ON 11/13/09
The low budget rovers in the original were some of the freakiest, scariest things on tv. When I was little I had nightmares about them.
By asfm at 11:47 AM ON 11/13/09
I really hate amnesia as a story device. It's extremely cheap.
By Imagica at 11:59 AM ON 11/13/09
Wait you complain about the rovers one of the most visual iconic aspects of the original series?
The fans begged to keep them in. In fact Sci Fi Channel was supportive of the movement.
By Gwinna at 12:03 PM ON 11/13/09
I'll be watching it.
One guy's opinion (and major spoilers) from a competing network isn't exactly a unbiased review.
By Carpe at 12:18 PM ON 11/13/09
Spoilers have nothing to do with bias, but it does reveal a reimagined plot which, I believe, is the complaint here.
By Mandy at 12:36 PM ON 11/13/09
I'm not a huge fan of remakes. I liked the original. I don't understand why it's now set in a desert instead of the island. The island is iconic. And I don't like this idea of him not knowing who he is or why he's there. That's purpose defeating.
By bluebandit at 12:52 PM ON 11/13/09
Americans always, always utterly ruin good British ideas. Go away and come back when you've thought of something original.
By Mandy at 1:27 PM ON 11/13/09
bluebandit, it's not my fault. I don't like most American remakes. I'm still angry about a certain network remaking Being Human while the original is still on the air. I'm talking to you, Syfy.
By Mandy at 2:03 PM ON 11/13/09
I'm an American and I don't like most American remakes of quality British stuff. In example: Remaking Being Human while the original is still going. I'm talking to you, Syfy.
PS. I posted this earlier but it 'mysteriously' vanished. I guess Scifi doesn't want anything bad said about it's remake of a show that's still going on another channel, a show that they ironically insulted when it was first starting.
If the original is in English and still going / recent what is the point?
By Mandy at 2:05 PM ON 11/13/09
Oh, there's my original post. That was strange. It took almost ten minutes for my browser to see it.
By Richard @ The Bewildered Brit at 2:52 PM ON 11/13/09
I'm a huge fan of the original. The only thing that this one really has going for it is Ian McKellan. Not sure I can be bothered TiVoing it, I think I'll just wait till the DVD is out and on Netflix.
It doesn't sound like it's got the direction, purpose and braveness that the original had. In fact, it sounds like a "sub-Lost" parody from what I've read.
By Loki at 3:01 PM ON 11/13/09
bluebandit - get over yourself. The brits copy just as many shows, and they have the same mixed level of success. Maude, Married with Children, and Mad About You, just to name a few.
By Bewildered at 3:11 PM ON 11/13/09
They HAD to keep the Rovers - they were great: Mysterious and creepy, we never found out what exactly they were (robots? biological constructs?) which made the pretty Village much more threatening...
Simple, but very effective.
By dennishenley at 3:22 PM ON 11/13/09
>>wasnt the remake more along the lines following hte book more?
What book? The Prisoner was an original series. Books only appeared when the show was on the air – original novels based on the TV show.
By gorehound696 at 4:10 PM ON 11/13/09
yes another remake that sucks and one i would never go near.this was another raping of my childhood since i am in my 50's.
i watch the original and will never go near this nor any other remake/reboot.
By Number 6 at 4:25 PM ON 11/13/09
I am thoroughly convinced that this shoddy American interpretation of my suffering is nothing more than a ploy by Number 2 in order to finally crack my mind once and for all. I must... remain... strong... I must...
By islesfan at 4:52 PM ON 11/13/09
And it was A&E not AMC that re-imagined the Andromeda Strain.
By divephotog at 7:07 PM ON 11/13/09
Watched the 1967 series religiously.... at least it was not on against ST.
Saw the promo 45 minute spiel for this the other day, and thought it would be a good mini. Actually surprised that Wire did not review it before this...
A retooling does not have to follow the footsteps of the original exactly, 'cause if it did, that means SyFy got BSG, Tin Man, and a bunch of other stuff wrong. - kh
By Carpe at 7:31 PM ON 11/13/09
@islesfan
I stand corrected. It was A&E that reimagined The Andromeda Strain. It still sucked.
By bendroid at 12:38 AM ON 11/14/09
I would never count on a Prisoner remake to be great... all I could ever hope for was that they wouldn't try to cram the Prisoner into a two hour film (Gawd the Avengers film sucked!)... At least it's a mini series and yes thankyou for including the rovers!
It seems that no matter how hard we cry about shoddy remakes and reimaginings (probably not even a word) they will keep on coming. I have decided just to shrug it off by rewatching the originals.
By CheDak825 at 11:03 AM ON 11/14/09
One of the true drawbacks with this is that Patrick McGoohan had to greenlight this prior to his death. For decades he only allowed one adaptation of the series to be done, and that was a DC Graphic Mini-Series by Dean Motter in the '90s. He was very protective and secretive over every aspect of The Prisoner. It is a shame that this can't live up to his vision, but late's face it, how could it in any event?
By BostonPeng at 12:53 PM ON 11/14/09
Why the hell did they have to show all 6 eps in one night? I suspect it would be better stretched across several nights, if not weeks. Now I'm going to have to shove the entire mini on my DVR at one time, meaning some other things have to come off.
Gee, thanks, AMC. Something tells me that seeing the entire series in one night will definitely make me like it more. Actually, not so much.
By sparrowlord01 at 11:51 AM ON 11/15/09
I agree with Carpe. Whenever some no talent hollywood hack wants to make some quick brownie points, all they need to do is bring out a real classic movie or TV show and "Re-imagine" it. And here we see a prime example of why these hacks should be keel hauled out of tinsel-town for good.
By TVDIVA at 11:33 PM ON 11/15/09
While Sir Ian is always amazing, I had to turn this off after 15 minutes of hearing Jim whine. I will go back and watch the original.
By Wyngarde at 3:07 AM ON 11/16/09
Re-imagingings suck. Not matter what. There has yet to be a good one.
When the article states "producers didn't take the "reimaging" quite far enough" That makes me cringe. This site should be defending Sci-Fi, not whoring it out.
The new series while OK, missed the "Chess Match" angle which made the orginal so great.
I'm sure the ending will be lame. It'll be something stupid since it's not a "Evil Corporation", like that's original these days.
Ah well. Another great idea wasted due to this bizarre obsession with "Re-Imagining"
Screw you Tum Burton for starting this.
By mykl at 3:07 PM ON 11/17/09
Once again, if Syfy loves the genre then why did they not pick up the series and produce it. I agree this is a pretty one sided review. So far the series is good. If it too hard to follow then maybe you shouldbe limiting your entertainment to coloring books.
By The Mac at 4:21 PM ON 11/17/09
So far my reaction is meh. It's mostly boring stuff. But here's what I love: #2's son. Damn who is this kid - what a hottie!!! And my gaydar went off the first time he spoke. I bet Sir Ian was very happy with this casting choice! lol
By robeuax at 10:30 PM ON 11/18/09
What could have been a good spy movie turned into a steaming pile of crap, but thats just me.
By KC at 9:50 PM ON 11/19/09
Well I liked most of the this remake. The nod to the original series at the beginning was cute. Its towards the end that it really was a bit much to swallow. And man what a downer of an ending. The great thing about the original series was that 6 always ultimately triumphed against number 2. And the whole taking-drugs-within-a-dream, WTF?
By UncleDes at 3:29 AM ON 11/21/09
I loved the original, with all its quirks and unevenness, but this crap was just awful. I gave up 1/2 way through ep. 4. And the US version of "The Office" is much better than the Brit version, btw.
Des
By APS at 3:24 PM ON 11/21/09
AMC's rerun of the original made the remake look even worse. There were college courses, books and thesis written on the original. We live in an age of Big Brother house, post 9/11 paranoia with government everywhere and still running Guantanamo. Our every move is tweeted and if ever there was a need for individualism it's today. How idiotic could the AMC production team be to not run with such a great and timely story that could have been updated to something poignant. What a waste. I hope someone with a brain will erase the AMC travesty and actually remake The Prisoner we all know & love.
By Kermonk at 12:44 PM ON 11/24/09
@MCP-001
Perhaps because he didn't want to spoil it for people who haven't seen it yet! Idiot.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Kermonk:
@MCP-001 Perhaps because he didn't want to spoil it for people who haven't seen it yet! Idiot....More »