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...

Having just viewed this film I am at a loss to see why it has been made. It is a good movie in itself but it lacked, for me, the emotional impact that the original carried. Also it does seem to be a straight remake of the original with very few important differences. I love this story and would rate the original as an 8.5, with this one a 7.5 simply because it adds nothing to the story except more blood and swearing.

"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.

I never saw the original, so I cannot compare it to this movie. However, I found the acting above-average and the story interesting. Too many of us take our freedom for granted. These types of movies are great for keeping us grounded.

The original version was one of many excellent films from the seventies, truly one of cinema's greatest decades. You don't remake The Sting, The Godfather, Cabaret,The Exorcist, Deliverance or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest so why remake Papillon? The new version is honest and worthy but it's flat and it's bland and if it wasn't for the efforts of Hunnam and Malek in the two principle roles then the film would be barely watchable. They don't have a lot to work with script wise and the direction is all over the place.What did director Michael Noer do previously to earn a stab at this ? I am not sure . Some scenes seem to copy faithfully scenes from the original so you know what's coming before it happens but when they do depart from the original it doesn't work either,for example compare the opening of the original against that of this remake where you see a little background of events leading up to Papillon's arrest and imprisonment. It wasn't necessary to show it. This film appears to be based on the original film lock stock and barrel instead of maybe venturing into the pages of the two enormous novels that Charriere wrote about his years in captivity. You feel the level of suffering much more in the original than this remake and I felt the black and white footage and photos that end the film conveyed the horrors of being in captivity much more than the preceding two hours.After the cruelly underrated Lost City of Z and this Hunnam will continue to see his stock rise and Malek already has his Oscar .I'd like to remember this film as being part of these two actors journey in cinema rather than it being a good remake of a seventies classic which it falls way short of.