Tucson Citizen.com

AMCs Prisoner Remake Disappoints

by on Nov. 18, 2009, under Cinema & TV, Science Fiction, Technology

This review contains spoilers. Last week I looked at the history of the original Prisoner television show and, in particular, its beautiful and enigmatic primary location, Portmeirion. I am not a number, I am a free man, so I will freely admit that I sat through all six hours of AMC’s Prisoner remake (okay, they called it an “interpretation,” whatever), loaded as it was with interminable advertisements for cars, palm-sized telephones, and other things you don’t need.

In the plus column the cast was, for the most part, rather good, particularly and not surprisingly the mighty Ian McKellan who is a towering talent and always a treat to watch. The production values were high, the locations lush, and the series itself did have a few memorable moments, but only a few.

The first two episodes were rather dull and I thought to myself: “Well, they’re just setting the scene, it’ll get better.” The second two episodes were also rather dull and I said to myself: “They’re saving all the action for the end.” The final two episodes were also rather dull and then I had nothing left to say to myself.

Portmeirion, the primary location for the original "Prisoner" series was replaced by a nondescript desert in AMC's remake

Portmeirion, the intriguing primary location for the original "Prisoner" series, was replaced by desert landscapes in AMC's remake

A major flaw is James Caviezel‘s portrayal of Number Six. He showed none of the sarcasm, wit, or humor that the great Patrick McGoohan brought to the original. McGoohan’s Number Six is fiercely independent, confident, and determined, but he’s also mischievous and complicated. He’d wander around The Village, knowing he was under surveillance, smiling at hidden cameras like a wily cat, just to confuse his watchers. He had the ability to make his enemies think he was up to something even if he wasn’t. Viewers believe that McGoohan’s Number Six can outsmart a small army of captors, and he turns the tables on his enemies so slowly and craftily that the viewer doesn’t really notice until Six has the upper hand and begins to destabilize The Village. However, my biggest issue with AMC’s remake is that it is just so sadly predictable. By the second episode it’s obvious that The Village is some sort of creation managed by the evil corporation that Caviezel’s Six once worked for. What a tired cliché, and the idea of “duplicate” personalities from the real world, living in The Village construct has been done before (and done better) in the groundbreaking science fiction film Tron as well as William Gibson’s masterful Neuromancer. Where is the mystery in the new Prisoner? One of the beauties of the original is that we never fully understand what is going on. As McGoohan’s Six says in “Many Happy Returns”: “I have a problem too. I don’t know which side is running The Village.”

So, in an attempt to, I suppose, update the original AMC took the easy way out, pitting Caviezel’s unimaginative Six against an Orwellian corporation, and then further slowed down what little excitement there is with an endless series of annoying flashbacks. The remake is largely a character drama, with precious little action. We don’t get to enjoy the ingenious and relentless escape attempts carried out by McGoohan’s Six, and Caviezel’s Six just isn’t engaging enough to hold the viewer’s attention as he participates in a halfhearted battle of wits with McKellan. Christopher Eccleston of the new Dr. Who series was, at one point, slated to play Six in the remake, and that I would have loved to witness! Eccleston is exciting, dangerous, and unpredictable and could have held his own against McKellan.

I fully appreciate that the new series is an original work and it should be judged on its own merits, rather than mercilessly compared to the original. That being said, if you have the gall to remake one of the most adored and influential series in television history, then you had better be prepared for the comparisons anyway. It’s unavoidable.

The verdict? AMC’s remake gets two stars out of five and it would have been only one without Ian McKellan. Patrick McGoohan is, and always will be, the real Number Six. Sorry AMC, I won’t be seeing you.

a-lizard-art-cp


  • Tim Jull

    Geoff,

    Your comments are right on target.  The original Prisoner had more mystery, there wasn’t the endless slipping back into the “pre-village” story-line.  It seems the new one is a cross between “Enemy of the State” and other such genres.  

    However, I did find the interesting location scenes in Swakopmund a new distraction.

    Tim

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

      Thanks Tim. I have to say I am sorry I didn’t like the remake. I was hoping to be surprised, but I wasn’t. I prefer a linear narrative, unless flashbacks are vital to the story, and with the AMC “Prisoner” they seemed like filler. I agree with you that the location was terrific, but where were Six’s daring escape attempts across the desert? He had one run-in with Rover and then just went back to world battles with Two. Having an actor of McKellan’s stature was great, but his talents were somewhat wasted on a pedestrian storyline. Thanks for sharing your views! Cheers — LL

  • http://twitter.com/Tarot1 Tarot

    I also would have loved to see Christopher Eccleston’s take on Six.  While I like the cast in this latest remake, I too was bored by it and didn’t bother watching after episode 2.

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

      Yes, and it is something I guess we’ll sadly never see. Imagine the intense confrontations Eccleston and McKellan would have had. Oh well, at least the original is available on DVD  : )  I’m sorry to say you didn’t miss much by not watching the next four episodes. They were pretty much more of the same. Thank you for reading The Logical Lizard.

  • Gary Wolf

     Why on Earth I watched all six hours of the new miniseries “The Prisoner” is hard to explain other than to compare it to the original series. The new series was dismal, humorless and unpleasantly edited. I will admit that the original Prisoner came up short on understandability, but it had both style and humor. Each episode of the older series could stand by itself. Some were very good, some only so so, but it had the fascinating trappings of style. Costumes and environs had a consistent theme. There was even a consistent font used on the signs and titles. Why, you can even buy a blazer, umbrella and other stuff that was seen in the old series. In short, the old series was fun to watch. The new one was dull and laborious.

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

      Dear Gary: Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree on all counts. The original series had drama, action, humor, and even though it was sometimes inexplicable (and yes there were a few mediocre episodes) it remains vital and engaging 42 years later and that is an amazing achievement. It puzzles me that with a very able cast, a high budget and a gorgeous location, the remake was just, so, well . . . uninteresting. Respectfully — LL

  • Ashley

    Maybe I need to watch the original, because the six hours of what I saw on AMC just confused the heck out of me. I still have no clue what I watched.

  • tiponeill

    Seems that Jesus is just a number ;)

  • Nighan

    I watched the first 45 minutes of Episode One and turned off the TV in disgust.   Having viewed the various online previews I didn’t expect much.  But what I got was even less.  No plot, poor writing, sappy music, and cinematography that should have ashamed a film school freshmen.  If you can’t tell a story using straight shot sequences in chronological order then throwing in dozens of flashbacks, slow mos  and shaky camera shots won’t help.

    But most of all I pity those millions of viewers who have never seen the REAL “Prisoner” and will never know what they’ve missed or how BAD this dime store copy is.

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

      Dear Nighan: We can only hope that new viewers will be interested enough to go back and watch the original. McGoohan’s Prisoner is available in all its splendour in various DVD editions. I re-watched the entire series, from beginning to the rather puzzling end, fairly recently, and it more than stands the test of time. Thank you for writing! Cheers — LL

  • AMR71

    I’d never even heard of the original series when I saw the ads for the AMC remake, so I was able to come into it with any comparisons or expectations. I thought it was a terrific psychological drama, and I have to say it left me guessing right up to the end. I loved seeing how the “real world” slowly unfolded to show us what might be going on. Ian McKellen was terrific as expected. I only knew Jim Caviezel from “Frequency,” a favorite in our house, but I thought he did a good job portraying a guy who moves from being totally confused about his surroundings to determined to figure it all out. Oh, and as a bonus, Hayley Atwell was absolutely gorgeous.

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

      Dear AMR71: Thank you for your comments. I was wondering if we’d hear from any viewers who enjoyed the remake, but had not seen the original. Interesting to know that if you’ve not seen the original series, the remake stands on its own for some viewers. Check out the original sometime. I think you’ll find it even better. Regards — LL

  • http://besthelptips.com/about.html marthagfy96

    “Seems that Jesus is just a number”
    Good that I am not the only one to think like that! :D

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

      Now why didn’t I think to use that comment in my column?  : )

  • KAR120C

    I have been a fan of the original since the first time I saw it… have the box set DVD collection, Love McGoohan, etc. 

    AND I THOUGHT THE REMAKE WAS AWESOME. 

  • http://tucsoncitizen.com/lizard/ Logical Lizard

    Hey I like your screen name, nice one : ) Glad to know that some readers enjoyed the remake, seriously. They put a lot of time and effort into it, but it didn’t work for me. It just seemed too much like ordinary American TV drama. Anyway, that’s just my opinion. More power to you for liking both the original and the remake! And thank you for visiting The Logical Lizard. Cheers — LL

  • James

    “By the second episode it’s obvious that The Village is some sort of creation managed by the evil corporation that Caviezel’s Six once worked for.”

    I’m a little confused by this statement. Did you honestly go in expecting something different? That was also obvious in the very first episode of the original.

    I didn’t take issue with Caviezel’s Six being different, because I don’t think that the humour of the original would’ve been fitting in this new series. And personally, I didn’t always fully understand what was going on in this remake (I’m getting that impression from some other viewers as well), which seemed to be going out of its way to be ambiguous toward the end.

    That said, I didn’t find the story as satisfying as I would’ve preferred, but I did enjoy the actors.


Logical Lizard illustration by Timothy Arbon
On location filming "Meteorite Men"

RSS Meteorite Men on Twitter