Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

admatha-767-524200 I have no complaints with the acting in this movie - in fact the acting was the only part that I really enjoyed. The story itself was awful. It's a great example of why I hate Lost and how heavily it has continued to influence serial television - Lost was popular, let's do the Lost thing of never telling our audience anything. Well, I despised Lost and I stopped watching it in the second season, and I despise Lost for making it so that every television show I watch feels the need to continue drawing things out for ever and ever and ever and ever. I thought that perhaps 6 episodes would be tolerable but no, even six feels like forever. At 40 minutes an episode it works out to 4 hours, and as someone who felt BBC's Pride & Prejudice was the perfect length, let me tell you - The Prisoner *felt* like about a hundred. I kept thinking "I get the feeling this would have worked excellently as a movie" but actually I was wrong, because, whether you've just sat through 2 hours or 4 hours or 2 seasons, the ending is *bad*. And I do not refer to being unsatisfied that it wasn't a happier ending, I refer to being unsatisfied with it *as* an ending. I am irritated that I kept going in the hopes that eventually something would happen but no, all that happens is that eventually we get a wishy-washy half-assed "science!" explanation for everything that has been going on and ... that's it. I went and read the synopsis of the original show - which I kind of wish I'd done beforehand, might have saved me some time - and it appears that viewers then had as frustrating and rage-inducing a finish as viewers of the remake have. All I can say is that as much as I like Ian McKellan, I'd like my 4 hours back, please.

clay-153 I came to this mini series without having seen more than a couple of episodes of the original series. If you're looking for an update of the original series, skip this mini series. That's not what it is and as you can see by the reviews, you'll only make yourself mad if you try to find it.As a free standing mini series, it's fantastic. An interesting idea well executed. Jim Caviezel does a good job of portraying the confusion and quest to rebuild his broken mind. Ian McKellan was a magnificent choice to play #2. He managed to play the terrifying totalitarian dictator and the benevolent father without any real change.If you like strange, cerebral science fiction, you'll enjoy this. If you're looking for a tale of cold war paranoia, this isn't your mini series.

galensaysyes This series' continual allusions to the 60s original make it look like a remake, but it gradually reveals itself not to be. Rather, it's a new story based on the same idea and starting more or less the same, but leading to a different resolution (if one can call the ending of the first series a resolution). The writer seems to have been attracted by the original's artiness and over-elaboration, both of which he emulates, while failing to achieve the same measure of style or wit. That makes his script less entertaining and more tedious. But its largest fault is that the beginning and the end don't match up. If the villain's aim were as stated, it wouldn't lead him to come up with anything like the Village, and his own behavior there, assuming it to be deliberate, seems fatuous. The second largest fault is that the denouement is of the all-encompassing kind that is invoked retroactively to excuse anything the writer felt like tossing in (cf. Life on Mars and Vanilla Sky) but that fails to explain anything in particular, that is, the things the viewer wants explained. It doesn't even manage to explain itself, e.g. how are the villagers kept in the Village, and where are they really, since it's made clear that they aren't all in the same place? The story hasn't been thought through enough. And the production doesn't transform it: the settings are drab, Ian McKellen's 2 is too much of a very moderately good thing, and Jim Caviezel as 6 appears to be channeling Steve Railsback in The Stunt Man, another overlong desert allegory, which the director may have had in mind while shooting this. It's not a bad show; it's just something to watch, in lieu of watching nothing--or, in other words, TV.

joseph-p-obrien Can't understand why the latest series has had some bad reviews. I thought it was excellent. Perhaps any remake of a classic will never live up to the original. This one gives a modern slant on the quirkiness and "big brother" atmosphere of the original. The original was made in the shadow of the cold war, with its echoes of totalitarianism, espionage, state surveillance etc. This version takes a fresh perspective. Here we have man versus a faceless corporate America, a caricature of the American dream with a 'Freudian psychoanalytical twist' :-). The characters are engaging (particularly Sir Ian Mc K's No.2) with far more depth than the original. Tension was kept throughout the neat six episodes - no attempt to string this out unlike the daft lengths of similar series e.g. Lost. I think its a must see - if only for Sir Ian's acting.