The Prisoner - Der Gefangene

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."

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.

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.

OK, I get the concept that the AMC production is in no way a sequel-type update to the 60's TV show. No argument there.

But--and I am sincere--can anyone actually provide me (and probably MANY others) with a detailed story line? A CLEAR plot summary? The writers/producers obviously wanted to keep viewers guessing and engaged, but there was never enough detail to determine which were flashbacks and which were...something else. And the last chapter was way too obtuse. It's fine that parts of the series wanted to comment on grand themes and deep societal concepts like the original did, in a modern way, but a more sharply-defined story line could easily do that, and probably hold everyone's attention longer. (Note: I can't buy into any explanation that says "It was all an allegory...it's whatever you think it means." There was enough of that already built-in to each episode.)

The pacing was awfully slow. The whole story could have been told well in 4 hours instead of 6. I found myself starting to want more unexplained holes in the sand and explosions just to pick up the action a bit.

You don't suppose that this was all an evil trick, the creation of a wicked team, to get us to watch all the episodes and then realize that WE were the prisoners for six hours?

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.