Papillon

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

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.

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 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.

"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.