After a long period of closure, the Wyoming State Penitentiary is reopened to address the problem of prison overcrowding. The State Council decides to reappoint the previous warden, who was involved in the unclear execution of inmate Charles Forsythe, wrongfully accused of assaulting and killing a cellmate. Approximately 300 inmates are sent to the prison, one of whom bears a striking resemblance to Forsythe. Director Sharpe decides to use harsh methods to maintain discipline and control the situation, loading the prisoners with various tasks. However, after the reopening of the “execution chamber,” requested by the director himself, strange events begin to occur and prisoners start to disappear, while something roams freely in the penitentiary...
Among the various horror films set in prisons, this one, together with “Who's in the House” (better known as “Slaughterhouse Rock”), is certainly one of the most original and interesting titles of the 1980s (currently, however, “Maleficent” deserves a mention). It was directed by Renny Harlin in one of his first attempts (certainly one of his most successful, especially in light of his latest questionable works and flops). Irwin Yablans wrote a compelling story that starts the film as a normal, incisive prison movie and then turns into horror; the first twenty minutes, in fact, are a simple but effective description of life in prison, without exaggeration but with a few clichés (there are some familiar situations, such as the confrontation between Mortensen and another inmate over a betting ring, or the classic and unsuccessful escape attempt by some inmates). After the reopening of the execution chamber (the scene in question is not bad, but it does feature some decidedly exaggerated ’psychedelic“ tricks: the idea of the spirit in the form of an electric current is not bad, but it could have been rendered in a more sober and credible manner; finally, they could have done without the blue light that shines powerfully from the room; you can see the spotlight shining like a ”bat signal“ from a thousand miles away, which certainly does not create any thrills or sensationalism), the film changes considerably, veering towards horror, even if the pace does not increase much. It moves on, perhaps a little naively, but logically nonetheless, to various deadly ”accidents“ (here too, there is an evolution, or rather a crescendo of brutality). The location where the film was shot contributes considerably to its success: an abandoned, dilapidated, and gloomy prison, truly a place where no one would want to be locked up for even a minute. The height of ”comfort“ is represented by the isolation cells (the scene of one of the first ”deaths“), which are veritable boxes of concrete and metal, located in a sort of dark, water-filled ”basement“. It is a place that conveys a certain sense of oppression and anguish. There are not many deaths, but they are all original and the tricks used are interesting: above all, the barbed wire (which we will find ”more extensively,“ albeit made with CGI in keeping with the times, in more recent films such as ”Silent Hill“). ”Prison“ features a respectable cast with Viggo Mortensen (as Burke), Chelsea Field (as the psychiatrist), and Tom Everett (as Warden Sharpe). Needless to say, the most interesting and successful characters are the first and third: the first thanks to Mortensen's performance, the third thanks to a good script and well-written dialogue, which prevent him from being the ”usual warden“ (the only discordant note is in the dialogue with the psychiatrist, who has many totally unrealistic humanitarian ideas). The only sour, or perhaps disappointing, notes in this work are: 1) the ritual of invoking the spirit, which is downright ridiculous; 2) the ending is too chaotic and gives the impression of wanting to surprise at all costs, even though it doesn't have what it takes (the film has a fairly slow pace and in three minutes there can't be total chaos, with riots, apparitions, ghosts, etc.; too many things going on and confused ideas; it was necessary to measure the events more carefully, perhaps even sorting them and including only the most significant or suitable ones). Ultimately, this is a film that may arouse some interest but at the same time leave viewers disappointed because of the good ideas that were not adequately exploited.
Review by decker
