Last month, I talked about the 1973 film Papillon. With the 2017 remake due out this month, I wanted to have a fair comparison between the two films. In revisiting my review of the older film, one point stood out to me. The original was better than it should have been. First, the film was not actually a biography but more of a compilation of stories. Second, the story was elevated by the performances of Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. So how does the remake measure up?
The first thing that stood out to me in this film was the performance of Rami Malek as Louis Dega. While I have been anticipating what I hope will be Malek's breakout film, Bohemian Rhapsody, his performance in Papillon left a lot to be desired. Rather than portraying Dega, I felt like Malek was attempting to be Hoffman portraying Dega. Rather than owning the role, it felt like a cheap ripoff. It just wasn't engaging to me. Charlie Hunnam was also a strange choice for Papillon. I haven't been impressed with the few things I have seen Hunnam in. The relationship between the two actors seemed more Brokeback Mountain than Papillon. Probably because Hunnam just didn't come across with the testosterone that McQueen had. It felt more like a love story than a story of survival at times.
As a quick recap, Papillon was sent to French Guiana after he was framed for murder in the 1930s. The prison was renowned for its brutality. The rules were strict and the punishments severe. The punishment for murder was death by guillotine. The punishment for an escape attempt was two years in solitary confinement for the first offense, five years for the second offense and banishment to Devil's Island. Dega was a forger caught creating fake bonds. He was also sent to French Guiana, where death was the most certain outcome. Papillon became Dega's protector with hopes that Dega would finance his escape. Dega became more of a liability at times, than protector. But the business arrangement became an odd friendship that lasted the duration of their stay at the prison, and possibly beyond.
I have not seen any other films directed by Michael Noer, who was at the helm for the reboot of Papillon. I did see the film Prisoners, which was written by Aaron Guzikowski, who created the screenplay for this film. I thought the film Prisoners was excellent. So I was sadly disappointed that Papillon failed to engage me. The story was plodding and had no heartbeat. It seemed as if everyone was simply going through the motions, hoping to capitalize on the success of a forty year old film. This film had great potential but managed to miss the mark. It wasn't bad, but it just wasn't that great. It plodded along to a two hour, thirteen minute run time, significantly less than its predecessor. Yet it managed to feel longer due to the lack of tension and depth.
Papillon is rated R by the MPAA. The rating is well deserved. It is a prison movie. There are a few scenes that include nudity and sensual situations, but the main factor is violence. There is a beheading, there are shootings, a man is gutted, etc. The violence includes a decent amount of gory imagery that may be too much for younger viewers. The film also has strong language. The violence, nudity and adult themes are contextual. This is the story of life at a brutal prison. It would be hard to tell without the violence, which is the primary driver of the rating. I would recommend a teen audience or older.
If you are intrigued by the story of Henri "Papillon" Charriere, read the autobiography or watch the 1973 version of this film. The remake lacks heart. As a stand alone film, it is not terrible. But it is lags far behind the original film. The actors in this film fail to connect in the way that Hoffman and McQueen did in 1973. The story was worth watching if you have seen the original and want to see the updated version, but don't go in with high expectations. I would suggest waiting for it on your streaming service. It's not worth paying for at the theater. 6.5/10.
Trailer and images subject to copyright.