Papillon

I grew up with the book story and original film about papillon, and im sad to say,i was abit dissapointed. its not the acting,it good enough considering the premisses. its the choice of locations, very cheap boat scenes, and the storytelling. all prisoners werre taken to the jungle on the mainland when arriving guyana,doesn show in the film, the isle are low terrained with a sloping coastline in the film its high cliffs and hills,they have mixed the nun and the indians by whom he was betrayed by and spent a year with.dega never met the indians!!!!!. very impotrant part of the book ! the lepra prisoner did not mingle with healthy prisoners or laymen, they had their own island on a river deep in the guyana jungle. akso when handling the boat,its clearly visible that there are return waves or echo waves around the boat, which tells me that the shooting has been done near a large quay or landing or in a wave pool. and where are all the socalled sharks everybody talks about---did you see a shark????? there are too many actuall and historical flaws to make this a classic...

There's no real reason for 1973's Papillon to have been remade, a sentiment that was seemingly found in most people considering how little fanfare this update got upon initial release, coming and going without so much of hint of notice but Michael Noer's re-imagining of the classic Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman prison break drama is a solid, if unremarkable attempt to breathe new life into the supposedly true life tale of 1930's convict and escape artist Henri "Papillon" Charrière.

Starring two of the most in-demand actors working today, in the form of Sons of Anarchy superstar Charlie Hunnam (who just can't catch a cinematic break) and Bohemian Rhapsody star, new Bond villain and Oscar winner Rami Malek, Papillon is a picturesque and solidly filmed epic that's lack of heart and energy often holds it back from achieving its goal of justifying its existence around its much beloved predecessor, that to this day holds up well as one of the quintessential incarceration/escape film's.

There's a lot of commitment on show from its leads, with Hunnam and Malek diving headfirst into their roles, even if Hunnam is the films real MVP, stripping back (and off) for his role as con artist turned wrongly convicted murderer Charrière.

While Malek is fine as psychically weak forger Louis Dega, of whom Charrière begins to protect in hopes he can finance an escape off the notorious French/Polynesian that the two criminals find themselves on in the harsh surrounds of the early 1930's, Hunnam's psychically and emotionally charged turn is deserving of a better film, a shame since his strong performance here will remain largely unnoticed, much like the similar low-key release of the very good Lost City of Z.

Despite Hunnam's turn and some great production qualities on stunning surrounds filmed across Eurpope, Papillon's big missed opportunity is in its creation of a strong friendship between Charrière and Dega. We never feel a strong connection between these two men, there's hints of a bond throughout but never a fully-fledged connection.

Unlike say a classic such as The Shawshank Redemption or even the original 1973 film, of which featured a great double act of comradery between McQueen and Hoffman, Papillon never nails its central and important friendship down, meaning we're always kept at arm's length to the plight of these two very different men, unable to be more than curiously engaged rather than totally captured by their dangerous undertakings.

Final Say -

Unnecessary and not close to matching the original, this modern take on the Papillon story is still perfectly watchable and features a turn by Charlie Hunnam that showcases why he can hopefully have a break out feature but overall you do wonder what the point of this whole exercise was when what we've had before is still more than adequate.

3 bundles of coconuts out of 5

To try and reproduce a former classic is getting out of hand. Directors have no insight into new subjects. Leave the classics alone

Watch the original and be wowed. Watch this and you will wonder why you didn't watch the original. There are no memorable scenes, acting is sincere but has no impact and this movie plays out like a tired story instead of an adventure. One has to wonder why this was done and the thought process behind it? Obvious behind the scenes dynamics are at work. I will say that it is watchable but only with a good snack, a friend or a way to kill some time. It is not a must see. I walked out before it ended for two reason. 1. I knew how it ended and 2. enough already. BTW...the book came under scrutiny as to whether it was all true or created by adding a bunch of stories together. Regardless of it all the book is a must read for anyone who likes a good read...

"Papillon" is based on a true story of a French thief who becomes friends with one of his fellow prison mates, and together they plan an escape. It is the remake of the 1973 movie of the same name.

Hunnam, who plays the main protagonist, gives a brilliant performance. He is an intelligent actor who has given his own original touch to the role. He plays the role with a lot of realism and intensity. The surprise package of "Papillon" is Rami Malek, who plays Hunnam's friend. He has given an outstanding performance that challenges the one originally done by the great Dustin Hoffman.

The direction is effective and the original atmosphere of the 1973 flick has been captured well enough.