Papillon

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.

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.

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

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