• Network:
  • Series Premiere Date: Nov 15, 2009
  • Season #: 1
The Prisoner Image
Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 21 Critics What's this?

User Score
3.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 81 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: The "reinterpretation" of the cult British 1960s series is remade as a six-hour miniseries about a man who wakes up in The Village, where people are only identifed by a number.
  • Genre(s): Drama, Action & Adventure, Suspense, Science Fiction
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 21
  2. Negative: 6 out of 21
  1. Its a clever and engaging reinterpretation by Bill Gallagher, who shaped the script to contemporary tastes and sensibilities--notably, a postmodern fatigue with ideology and big thoughts.
  2. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    67
    The Narrative knot is further jumbled by all the head games Two plays on him and everyone else. Six is on shifting sand, and so, too, will you be.
  3. Reviewed by: Paige Wiser
    50
    Maybe you can appreciate this series without the fear that you will be expected to write a thesis on it. But I urge you to heed my advice: Opt out while you can.
  4. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    40
    This reimagined version, which feels a bit old hat in a post-Matrix fantasy landscape, is more leaden, pretentious and solemn, a tone embodied by Caviezel’s brooding Six, who’s more dour than dashing.
  5. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    40
    Too much of Bill Gallagher's self-consciously arcane script and Nick Hurran's direction unfolds as if through a funhouse mirror, offering less in the way of clues than marking time until the vague, conspiratorial reveal in the closing chapters.
  6. The new Prisoner looks marvelous, even if its desertlike location is initially a lot less appealing to the eye than the original Village, filmed on the lush grounds of a hotel in Wales. But also like "V" (so far), it doesn't seem to have as much to say.
  7. The conclusion is that a great cast and a singular location can't carry a scattershot script that goes in and out of focus.

See all 21 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 26
  2. Negative: 15 out of 26
  1. AustinB
    Nov 20, 2009
    10
    Well-executed balance of complexity and drama. It's captivating and an excellent reference and re-imagining to the original.
  2. BillyS
    Nov 18, 2009
    8
    Thought provoking in an oddly desolate way.
  3. Feb 27, 2013
    4
    This six hour mini-series is said to be a 'reinterpretation' of the cult British show. Having not seen more than a few clips of the originalThis six hour mini-series is said to be a 'reinterpretation' of the cult British show. Having not seen more than a few clips of the original I can't really make comparisons but there is very little to recommend here as the slow pace and overly complicated plot make for rather dull television. Expand
  4. MarleneM
    Nov 18, 2009
    3
    Ian McKellen is always watchable but that's just about the only good I can say about this remake. The original series still has its Ian McKellen is always watchable but that's just about the only good I can say about this remake. The original series still has its crown and I will have forgotten this remake as soon as I switch it off. Expand
  5. DanielV
    Nov 20, 2009
    2
    Dreadfully boring. Unlike the original, in the sense that all intrigue and charm has been removed.
  6. AaronR
    Nov 18, 2009
    2
    Ian McKellan can be thanked for my not rating this lower. The plot was complete disjointed and, in the end, didn't make any sense. I Ian McKellan can be thanked for my not rating this lower. The plot was complete disjointed and, in the end, didn't make any sense. I think they could have gone in a great direction, but the editing really hurt the show. In addition, this did not need to be six hours long. I think three would have been good, and extra characters could have been cut (the brother story line? I don't know what that was about). In the end, it just helped reaffirm that James Caviezel doesn't need to act, ever, as his shifts from stone acting to watery blubbering to soap opera seriousness just left me with a migraine. Expand
  7. JaneWillDoIt
    Nov 21, 2009
    0
    Quite possibly the worst remake ever made. None of the intelligence, wit, or sparkle from the 1968 one were present in this trite remake. Quite possibly the worst remake ever made. None of the intelligence, wit, or sparkle from the 1968 one were present in this trite remake. Everything is slip-shod : the writing is a pretentious joke ; the directing is amateurish ; the pacing is as slow as molasses. I fell asleep during the third hour ( but dragged myself through the rest ). Patrick McGoohan would never demean himself by presenting such tripe as this. Expand

See all 26 User Reviews