Henri "Papillon" Charrière (Charlie Hunnam) is a thief in 1931 Paris. He is framed for murder and sent to the French Guiana penal colony. He partners with weakling counterfeiter Louis Dega (Rami Malek) and attempts various escapes using Louis' money.
Papillon (73) is one of my favorite prison movies of all time. This is a fair redo and that's all this could be. The production is top level. The setting has the tropical desperation. It falls on the two leads to rise to the challenge. Rami Malek has plenty of Dega in him and the comparison to Dustin Hoffman is not unfavorable. Charlie Hunnam tries his best but he's no Steve McQueen. Few are and it's an unfair ask. This is fine but it doesn't compare to the original.
Papillon
2017
Action / Adventure / Biography / Crime / Drama / Mystery / Thriller
Papillon
2017
Action / Adventure / Biography / Crime / Drama / Mystery / Thriller
Plot summary
Based on the international best-selling autobiographical books "Papillon" and "Banco", PAPILLON follows the epic story of Henri "Papillon" Charrière (Charlie Hunnam),a safecracker from the Parisian underworld who is framed for murder and condemned to life in the notorious penal colony on Devil's Island. Determined to regain his freedom, Papillon forms an unlikely alliance with quirky convicted counterfeiter Louis Dega (Rami Malek),who in exchange for protection, agrees to finance Papillon's escape.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
Director
Top cast
Tech specs
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU 720p.WEB 1080p.WEBMovie Reviews
a fair copy
It's the story of a lot of men
They did a remake of the incredible story of Henri Charriere Papillon. Why? I don't know. It was clearly not as good as the first one which may have had some Hollywood dramatization. This film appeared to be more gritty and realistic but knowing the ending made it anti-climatic. Not a bad production, just not as good.
Guide: F-word. Brief sex. Nudity.
Reasons why
And no I don't mean to have reasons why or want to have any for this remake. No I mean the reasoning behind the will of our main character. He is getting more of a backstory here, than he got in the original movie. Now this may satisfy some and may make some really angry or annoyed. But it is there and I would argue it is not a bad thing overall.
Charlie Hunnam still has to leave his Sons of Anarchy shadow behind ... he is trying very hard and he may succeed one day. But as of now he has not done anything remotely as succesful as SoA. Not trying to be mean or discredit him as an actor in any way shape or form. There are quite a few reasons I reckon why he wasn't able to. But he's working and he's doing a lot of big budget movies, so there's that.
This is not a carbon copy of the original, which may satisfy or anger the fans of the original. I liked its approach and the changes it did overall. Still the classic movie triumphs over this. Which doesn't make this a bad movie at all. It's a very fine movie actually. If you like dramas and slow moving stories. The (free) will of humans does not have to be explained ...