Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

And that is the problem. The original 'The Prisoner' was in many ways one of the defining TV shows of the Sixties. It covered The Cold War and paranoia, spying in real life and literature (Number 6 vs 007), the psychology of groups, and does so in a manner that leaves the viewer never being totally certain of where, when, or how the show is happening, or where it is leading them.The remake can't do that. This is not the fault of the cast. They worked hard, and are a talented bunch.But the remake couldn't work, because The Prisoner is so very much a Sixties concept that it just couldn't be reworked for another decade. That's a problem that is shared with many other period pieces.

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.

I am a huge fan of the original. Let's get that out of the way. I was well aware with how much people hated this and how 'bad' it was supposed to be when I sat down to watch this - so I have to admit that I was rather surprised with how much I enjoyed the experience. It is very different to the original version - it's polar opposite in fact, in that the 6 in this version is always one step behind 2 and is much more submissive than the Patrick McGoohan character. This change in character seems to have irked some people, but I didn't want a straight remake of the original and I found the whole concept here to be, whilstnot exactly fresh, intriguing enough to keep me interested and stimulating enough (especially Ruth Wilson) to have me hooked for six hours. What made the biggest difference to me was the fact that the ending made sense, it allowed the viewer to tie the knots and draw and out ones own conclusions, rather than just confuse and frustrate as did the ending to the 1967 version. The explanation was fascinating and the conclusion was very through provoking. If you do head into this, go in with an open mind and know in advance that it is very unlike the original. I believe that that will make all the difference. Like 'Lost', it doesn't make full sense, cannot be simply explained, but it's the journey that counts. I enjoyed the journey, was entertained for 6 hours and that means that this series (in the words of 'Hunter') "works for me".

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.