Papillon

It is an impressively staged and appropriately rain-soaked, mud-splattered, bone-crunching tale, more violent and filled with rougher language than its predecessor, if not quite as powerful or moving.

Even as a reboot, it remains both scenically beautiful and an ordeal at the same time.

Mr. Malek gives an eccentric performance, but he won’t make anyone forget Dustin Hoffman, whose original Dega was an endearing coward, a fatalist and a masterpiece.

Charlie Hunnam as Parisian safecracker Henri “Papillon” Charrière and Rami Malek as his pal-in-hell, counterfeiter Louis Dega, were sorely in need of richer characters written (or directed?) with more complexity, coloring, backstory, tics, or whatever might humanize them more.

This remake proffers the sort of cinematic nowhere place that's all too common of an increasingly corporate, globalized cinema.

This Papillon just lopes from place to place, and indignity to indignity, without any special style or verve.

With no unique viewpoint on the story of its own, it’s perplexing why Papillon went in front of cameras at all.

A story about a man that was too arrogant, and got himself into jail. From that point on, his story transforms into one about heroism and strength as he never gives up on his hope to escape the hellish prison in French Genua in 1931. . What strikes me the most from watching this movie, is the sheer strength in Papillon to survive 7 years of solitary prison, and yet not give up. By the time he does escape, and probably settles in Venezuela, the world is at the tipping point of going into World War II. For this man however, that must have weight much less considering what he has been through. Despite what some critics are saying with 'this movie offers little', i judge every story for what it is. And the story in this movie was very interesting and entertaining to watch. It's an excellent movie, and i give it an 8/10.

This movie missed a real chance to be something special. All the ingredients are there, two very strong leading roles, a story with real potential, but somehow it all just doesn't exactly fall in to place. I enjoyed myself for large parts of the movie, but also found myself desperately wishing for the end of some scenes that got dragged on for far to long. That being said, Charlie Hunnam has come a long was since Green Street Hooligans, and will hopefully make an appearance in another movie that better suits his talents. He and Rami Malek both play excellent roles, it's the writers that fail to bring emphasize the chemistry between the two characters that is obviously there (hence the coconut scene). Conclusion, this movie could had the potential to be a lot better, but thanks to it's leading actors, was still acceptable to watch.

Both Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek give good performances but lack chemistry and considering the story is entirely based on their characters that becomes a problem. It's entertaining enough but its narrative rhythm doesn't do any favors to it, especially considering the slowness with which the first half hour unfolds but the film gets recovered and although it will not leave any memorable impression or I doubt you talk about it after finish it I think it deserves the opportunity to be seen.

Malek and Hunnam's performances can't save this film from the overly long run time and slow pace. So much of this film could have been edited down, Especially that near 20 minutes long solitary confinement scene, but wasn't and that's what really kills it for me. It's not exciting, It's not interesting. It's boring and it fails to keep your interest.

As I was watching “Papillon” a few thoughts went through my mind such as: 1) Why did I come to see this movie? 2) When will I learn it is okay to walk out of a boring movie? 3) Charlie Hunnam could walk into Daniel Craig’s shoes as James Bond and I don’t many would know the difference. 4) Hopefully Rami Malek’s next movie as Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody” will be a big hit because as he tries to make the move from television star, with his series “Robot” going into its last season, “Papillon” isn’t helping him. 5) Why does Hollywood continue to spend millions on making remakes when very few are as good, and even few better, than the originals? Especially those that are thought of as classics or have had unforgettable leads? 6) Does adding more violence and/or more nude males in prison make a movie better? 7) Though I am not familiar with previous works of Charlie Hunnam he does express a lot with just his face and emotions he is feeling but, right now, he is not quite the Steve McQueen of the 1973 original “Papillon”. Obviously, my thoughts strayed as I was watching the movie or turning my head away with some of the gratuitous violence but the bottom line is the story screenplay and none of the actors drew me into the movie to knock those thoughts out of my head. The next remake coming up is “A Star Is Born” starring Bradley Cooper, who also directed, and Lady Gaga. I have seen and am a fan of the original and the two remakes, each for different reasons, and am hoping this new version will be the exception to the rule about remakes and be their equivalent. The bottom line is I found “Papillon” a bore and would suggest you watch the original as that is a film that Hollywood doesn’t make, a two-star action prison film epic that you really believed happened.