Papillon (2017) [DVD]

My Wife and I were around to see the original Papillon in a local movie theater when it was first released. We also watched the original several times since either on regular TV or video tape. When I found this new remake being offered thru our Amazon Prime subscription I added it to our Watchlist.Last evening I asked my Wife if she would like to watch 15-20 minutes to see if she would like it, she agreed. We both are fans of Rami Malek and really liked the original Papillon movie with McQueen and Hoffman so we began watching. At the 20 minute mark I paused it and asked her if she wanted to finish watching, she agreed that what we had viewed thus far was worth watching to the end. Both Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek, as well as the other actors provide an excellent portrayal of this true story.And, even though there are some similarities to the original, the portrayal had enough of it's own unique content to keep both our interests and for that to happen is a rare occurrence. Not once during the 2 plus hour movie did I have a dozing moment which is extremely rare for me.Some negative reviews are to be expected, most people, including my Wife and I often say "why don't they just let the original stand" but in this instance having seen the original when it was first released in the theaters and several times since, we can honestly say that this is an excellent remake and well worth watching.

I listened to this on my way to work for several months and just loved it. Michael Prichard does a superb reading, adopting the rough accent of an ex-con, but reading the French and Spanish parts very capably. The book is a remarkable story of escapes and recaptures during Carriere's years of imprisonment in French Guyana of the 1930s and 40s, and whatever you might think of the truthfulness of it, the story is well-told and often moving. I enjoyed every minute of it.

Great movie

I wish I could split this into two ratings. I’d give 5 stars for a great motion picture and 2 stars for authenticity.First, the good: great acting, great sets, compelling story. It probably realistically depicts the suffering of the transported French convicts. All good and well worth watching. It strikes me as very different than the first Papillon, though it’s been a while since I’ve seen it.Now the bad: I am currently reading the book by Henri Charriere. I’m not done but it does not appear to follow the book and it would seem that some characters were consolidated into one. It “riffs” off the book and the filmmakers created their own story, loosely based on it.Second, even if it DID follow the book closely, the truth of the book is in question. Yes, Charriere was a prisoner in French Guiana and he escaped. But many of the adventures he credited to himself were probably taken from other prisoners. It’s been said the book is 10 percent true. However, the French have not been known for veracity when it comes to the workings of their justice system so Charriere’s critics are also in doubt.The biggest boo boo is that Charriere was never a prisoner on Devil’s Island. This has been verified by French records.I was on Devil’s Island. As a visitor not a prisoner. There are no giant cliffs. The island I remember was very lush green and tropical and it slopes gently down to the shore. No cliffs. Therefore no jumping off cliffs, as in this movie. The sets for the prison area seemed like they were modeled from the crumbled remains that we saw.

This is a great remake! Love the original also!

Love this movie 10 out of 10.

... to Charriere's memoir, and on top of that, even Charriere said the book was not completely accurate, that it may be something in the 75% range of true, after having looked at the photographs of him before and after, I doubt even that.But I digress. The film is very good, even if substantial artistic license is taken.For the full effect of the differences, I'd say read the memoir, then see the movie. The perspective would be notable.For the quality of the film, rather than Hollywood's version of Charriere's version of what may or may not have happened or what may or may not have been overlooked, I'd say it is worth a look.I see the double billing on the poster, but Charlie Hunnam is not in the same league as Rami Malek. Not even close. Charlie Hunnam is an actor of singular dimension. He plays the same kind of character with the same monotone voice and delivery as anything else. Rami Malek is not bound by any of those things, and his Louis Dega outshone Hunnam's Charriere in almost every scene with the both of them in it, save the last scene together, where Hunnam almost did some acting. Almost.The prison sets are remarkable, the interior scenes are not, the sideshot of 4 escapees in the dingy bobbing about was so poorly done and badly soundstaged it looked as though it was spliced in from another movie. The other inmates on Devil's Island must have been rushed over still in character from a zombie movie on a nearby set. They were not very convincing as resident convicts.The tone of the scenes was set by the lighting, and is was fairly well done, the sound was even, the dialogue was surprisingly good, but far too much time was spent on minutia. For a 2+ hour film, much was left out that should not have been. We went from floating away on coconuts to flying in an airliner back to France in one segue. Several years were missing in that transition from floating to flying that would have added considerable perspective and depth.This film is not nearly the original with McQueen and Hoffman. While Malek's Dega is as good as Hoffman's, the remainder of the cast was lacking. Still, I think it is worth a look for Rami Malek's performance alone.