VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

qmtv Real rating is a B or C, or about 6 or 7 stars. 10 given to compensate for the slow viewers.I've seen this movie twice now. First time May, 2016 and at that time I thought it was slow and not much going on and the rating was a C or D. I just rewatched it last week and I must say given the budget it was much better that I originally thought.This movie basically takes Orwell's 1984 and cuts to the chase. The torture of the prisoner, the wardens addiction to torment the prisoner. The copy that I watched was from a 50 movies set and was not in the best shape but watchable. From what I gathered the Prisoner was a Corporate type that was implicated for not helping the new regime that just took over power. While he was imprisoned, and tortured, there must have been a world war and all that the prisoner knew, his wife and life was all gone. By the time he tried to escape he realized that even if he did get out there was nothing left. So, the prisoner and torture is all from 1984 but the ending is something else.The main actor did a fine job, some of the other actors were good too. The guard looked the part but his acting was garbage. The cinematography was very good. Music was good. Editing could have been a little tighter. The robots were interesting. There's a lot going on here. This is a low budget and I believe TV production. Imagine if they had some cash behind it. The story is there. And isn't that what most of us want, The story! One more thing. I recently watched 1984, twice, the 1984 version. What a pile of crap. I then watched the 1956 version. Much better. Then the Peter Cushing 1954 British TV version, the best 1984! I've also seen the US TV 1953 version, decent. I'd rather watch 984: Prisoner of the Future than the 1984 version of 1984.Real rating is a B/C, or 6 or 7 stars. 10 given for compensation for the slow viewers looking for the next Star Wars.

brando647 984: PRISONER OF THE FUTURE was the pilot for a Canadian television that never went to series but was instead released as a TV movie in 1982. Having watched it twice now, I can understand why it was never picked up but I also want to be clear that I respect what they were trying to do. Buried somewhere in the poor direction, poor editing, and poor script is a story with the potential to have made for an interesting show. With a budget and proper filmmakers behind the scenes, this could have been a cool dystopian science fiction drama. Instead it's a bit of a mess with the occasional flicker of interesting material. It drops you right in the middle of the story from the very beginning. When we first meet our protagonist Tom Weston (Stephen Markle), he's locked in a nondescript prison cell. He's been assigned a prisoner number (984, obviously) and his only socialization from comes prisoner #30 in the cell next door. It's obviously sometime in the future because the guards are some sort of robot on wheels with glowing red laser eyes (also, it's stated plainly in the title) but otherwise there's little to see because the entire film looks as if it was shot in an abandoned warehouse. There's nothing but brick walls and concrete floors, and I'm pretty sure the prisoner intake flashback scene was shot on the loading dock. I found myself distracted by this obvious fact but, to be fair, I'd have been willing to forgive the low budget location restrictions if the movie had been executed better.Weston is some sort of political prisoner, I think. The events leading to his incarceration are revealed in flashbacks over the course of the movie and exposition comes from Weston's interactions with the giddily psychotic warden (Don Francks). Here lies my biggest problem with PRISONER OF THE FUTURE; thanks to the poor editing, direction, and script (and the less than stellar audio transfer on my DVD copy), I was left completely baffled at the constant nonsensical backstory information. I believe he's a political prisoner who has been imprisoned for crimes committed against something called the Movement. I thought the Movement was a resistance faction but apparently they might actually be the ones in charge. The warden seems determined to squeeze a confession from Weston but Weston holds strong that he has no idea what's going on. He seems 100% convinced that he's been wrongly accused but the warden hits him with evidence that Weston's friends and associates (and mistress?) were all co-conspirators. But then I got the impression from some of the flashback sequences that Weston was actually in trouble for refusing to commit atrocities in the name of the Movement. So was he imprisoned because he refused to play ball with the baddies? At this point, I'm still unclear. Director Tibor Takács and screenwriters Peter Chapman and Stephen Zoller seem to have forgotten that, for the audience to care about our hero, we really should know and understand what he's going through. Since I have no concept of where he stands in all this, I have a hard time sympathizing. Is he a criminal? Or a victim?PRISONER OF THE FUTURE is a pretty rough watch but I'll give it credit for trying. Unlike a lot of the Z-grade movies I've made myself suffer, at least Takács and cinematographer Alar Kivilo try to get creative in how they shot it. Rarely is the camera locked down while we're forced to watch the same static frame while characters rattle off dialogue. The camera does its part in trying to tell the story and for that it gets some respect. PRISONER OF THE FUTURE may be a lame TV movie but it's giving it an effort. Sadly the cinematography is one of the few positive notes I've got on the movie. But not the only one. I still love the robot guards and my interest piqued whenever they were on screen. There was an especially cool bit in the finale where they're pursuing Weston and flailing at him with karate-chopping action figure skills. The whole use of torture and brainwashing to break the prisoners was pretty cool (we see the effects of it on prisoner #1170, who goes from smarmy businessman to sniveling wimp over the course of his stay) and we get an interesting reveal at the end about Weston's imprisonment that I would've like to delve into further. I'm guessing that would've been the ongoing thread if this ever went on to become a full-fledged series. Really, that's the most frustrating part of this movie. It doesn't get truly interesting until the very last few minutes but by then it's too late and the credits are rolling. I can't really imagine where 984: PRISONER OF THE FUTURE could've gone with a full series run and I'm left to wonder if it was doomed from the start, but using this confusing mess of a movie pilot probably wasn't starting them off on the right foot anyway.

J-bot6 Many years ago I saw this movie on late-night television. Finally, after all this time I stumbled across it on a compilation. It was a pleasure to see this low-budget yet atmospheric film again.The lighting is well executed, editing is solid, acting is descent, and the robot designs are very cool. Shot selection is great, with lots of up-angle shots to add to the scale of the prison. This film has a great hard sci-fi short story feel to it. It's as if it was ripped from the pages of a science fiction serial from the 50s or from a plot by Harlan Ellison. It's nice to see something that hasn't been watered down by committee.Based on the credits it looks like this is a Canadian production. An interesting side-note is that there are very few Canadian productions that even come close to approaching USA Hollywood productions. Besides the relatively small budgets and general lack of infrastructure in Canada for film-production, there's a bit of a story behind the disparity between the two country's movie industries. The way it was relayed to me is something like this: Believe it or not, Canada's film industry started out as a pioneering force in film production and filming techniques. For example, there were some hot-shot crews working with the National Film Board of Canada figuring out advanced techniques for doing night shots and a variety of difficult weather shots and lighting setups. At some point, pressure was put on the NFB to move away from shooting movies and focus pretty much exclusively on documentaries and short films. Some suggest that it was a sort of non-competition clause between Canadian film productions and USA film productions. Hence the NFB is generally associated with very low production-value documentaries and short 'student' films. This gave the impression that Canadian film makers were somewhat inept.The reality of situation is that most of the talented Canadian film makers ended up being assimilated by Hollywood. Hence the vast number of Canadians living in L.A. Pull up a list of Canadian directors and cinematographers and prepare to be blown away. The conclusion is that if you actually supply these people with suitable equipment and a descent budget, they'll actually deliver the goods.

Woodyanders In a grim future, affluent businessman Tom Weston (a fine and sympathetic performance by Stephen Markle) gets taken prisoner and jailed in a dismal penitentiary for some sort of crimes he committed against the government. Despite being subjected to constant physical and psychological torture by the sadistic and eccentric warden (well played with lip-smacking wicked relish by Don Franks), Weston refuses to break and clings to the hope that he will one day be released so he can be reunited with his wife Margaret (lovely Michele Chicoine). Director Tibor Takacs and writers Stephen Zoller and Peter Chapman do an able job of crafting an intriguing, if at times too frustratingly vague narrative and present a powerfully downbeat, paranoid, and nightmarish vision of a dark Orwellian future that's both effective and unsettling in equal measure (the harsh oppressiveness of the prison environment in particular is captured in a strong and vivid manner). Markle and Franks do sterling work in the lead roles, with sturdy support from Stan Wilson as the warden's brutish assistant Jeffries. The central theme about the strength of the human will and its extraordinary capacity for overcoming the worst possible ordeals is both touching and provocative. Alar Kivilio's cinematography makes neat use of stark lighting and overhead camera angles. The surprise bummer ending packs a devastating punch. Although marred somewhat by the modest budget -- the robot security guards on roller skates are alas more silly than scary -- and a muddled plot, it's nonetheless an unjustly forgotten sleeper that's well worth checking out.