Papillon

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.

This is a great film. I have not seen the original. Rami Malek does such a great job, he's really coming up in the acting world. I love him.

The story is a beautiful one. About friendship, loyalty, trust and courage. I had thoughts about how grateful I am to be living the life I currently live, after seeing what some people have endured through this movie.

Worth a watch that's for sure! 7/10

This isn't a bad remake, but McQueen and Hoffman deliver such amazing performances in the original film, this film was always going to find that impossible to get close to. Whilst it's a reasonable stand-alone film and not a bad movie, you just find yourself comparing it to the original at every turn. A classic film, is a classic film and should really be left alone. I'd prefer directors and producers to look at new projects and new ideas. Rehashing movies that have already been brilliantly done, are just a waste of resources. I would advise anyone wanting to watch this movie, just watch the original.

I love this remake. I loved the original. The only things I have issue with on the remake are the exteriors portraying French Guiana. I know this remake was shot in Europe. You'd think with modern technology they could've made it look like Guiana as opposed to Europe. The portrayal of the Salvation islands, especially Devils Island, is so historically incorrect. I still love the storyline. Charlie and Remi were perfect in their roles. In the original, you could feel their plight from jungle diseases and atmosphere. This one just looked like a dreary day in Serbia.

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.