The Prisoner Remake on AMC

Instead of watching that legendary Colts-Patriots game that was so good everyone is going to be talking about it until the end of time, I opted to watch AMC's remake of that old weirdo classic television series, The Prisoner, starring Jim Caviezel and Ian McKellen. Now, I've only watched a couple episodes of the original, so I'm no expert, but the general idea is that a guy is mysteriously removed from society and placed in some sort of remote, inescapable town where everyone has a number for a name and people say goodbye by making a circle with their fingers and saying "be seeing you." If anyone tries to leave, a giant white bubble comes out of nowhere and mugs them. All of that was substantially the same in the new version -- except that no one did the hand motion when they said "be seeing you." I guess that was just too corny (but the big white balloon was not). The acting was generally decent -- I don't think you can go wrong matching Caviezel's mild pensiveness against McKellen's grand dramatic style. But it wasn't the premise or the acting that was the problem, it was the awful directing. Let me count the ways:

1. Narrative. There were several times in the 2-hour first installment (it's a miniseries) where I had no idea what was going on. Granted, there were a lot of things going on, including a recurring flashback, dream sequences, and hallucinations. But the cuts to and from these were mostly devoid of context, preventing the viewer from establishing any sort of continuum in time. Caviezel's character would be having a conversation with someone about his past, then we'd see a flashback, and then he'd wake up in bed screaming. I assumed the flashback was related to both his recollections and his nightmare, but the big question I had was: how did the scene end? What does the girl he was talking to know now? Are we supposed to understand that he told her the story, or that he was only dreaming it? And by the way, what happened to the girl he was talking to? How did that scene end? He'd be wandering around a sand dune one second, and then he would be tied to a stake and gagged. What happened? I don't know. Is this the director's attempt at a hallucinatory tone, a la Lynch? Is it because they don't have time for contextual cinematography and dialogue because they're smashing a whole show into a three-day miniseries? I think it's just poor storytelling.

2. Music. There was a scene where three characters were trying to detect sounds of an ocean in the middle of the desert. Caviezel's character was saying, shush, let's listen, it has to be here! They all shut up and the camera swept around them. What did we hear? Annoying music. Sometimes, silence is the best soundtrack. Also, there was an inappropriately humorous, almost song-and-dancey number at the end of the show that made no sense and seemed really out of place. These are just crappy choices.

3. Shot selection. This episode contained more than one scene of Caviezel growling and screaming in frustration as the camera swirled around him and lifted up above him ("Nooooooooooooooo!"). In this day and age, there's only one kind of movie we should ever see this scene in: a parody.

Who's this director, you ask? Thanks for asking! His name is Nick Hurran. Yes, that Nick Hurran, the one who directed that critically acclaimed gem, Little Black Book. [Please accept my heavy-handed sarcasm]. Nice try, Nick.

Needless to say, I made the wrong choice -- I should have watched the game. However, there are two more episodes left that could salvage this thing. I'm willing, but not hopeful.

Be seeing you.