"Brubaker": Redford's Prison Reform...Does It Hold Up?

Okay, so I just finished watching "Brubaker" again, this time at like 2 AM because, well, insomnia. Redford plays the warden who goes undercover as a prisoner, and then BLAM, he's suddenly the boss trying to fix everything. It's a pretty solid premise, right? The thing that always gets me is how quickly he flips from being this silent observer to full-on righteous crusader. Like, did anyone else find that a little jarring? He sees some bad stuff, sure, but everyone's acting like this farm wasn't corrupt for years. And it really makes you wonder how much of that corruption still exists now. Is it just under a new coat of paint? Or hidden even better? I'm also curious about the supporting cast. Yaphet Kotto absolutely kills it, as usual. And Morgan Freeman is good, but he's almost unrecognizable! Anyway, what I'm wondering is, does anyone else feel like the movie kinda glosses over the motivations of some of the other inmates? Like, we see they're suffering, but we don't really know them, you know? It's all kind of secondary to Brubaker's noble quest. Maybe that's the point, but it leaves me feeling kinda...unsatisfied? And the ending! No spoilers, but it's definitely... a choice. I get the point about the system being bigger than one guy, but it still feels kinda deflating. Like, all that effort for what? Did Brubaker actually change anything, or was he just a temporary disruption? So yeah, I'm throwing it out there: what's everyone else's take on "Brubaker"? Is it a genuinely powerful statement or just another Hollywood 'white savior' type movie? I'm really not sure, and would love to hear some opinions. Especially on that ending, because I've been sitting here thinking about that for like 30 minutes now! Basically: what does the ending really say? And is the whole thing a bit too simplistic about prison reform? Let's discuss!