Papillon Reviews

  • May 26, 2020

    This could be classed alongside 'The Magnificent Seven' as an unnecessary remake. If you saw the original 1973 version it is hard not to make unfavorable comparisons. This is a solid, earnest undertaking which partially recreates the grim authenticity of the original but without its entertainment value and visceral punch. When you take away the charisma and chemistry of Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, the incredible score by Jerry Goldsmith and the sheer scale of the original's memorable opening scenes, what is left is a drab vanilla remake. Charlie Hunnam is a competent and likeable actor still in search of a director who can tap into his screen persona. Rami Malik lacks any character depth and keeps reminding the viewer of what a magnetically watchable actor Dustin Hoffman was. There is no excitement, no chemistry between the two leads and no humour. My recommendation is to not waste your time on this leaden remake and seek out Franklin J. Schaffner's original version.

    This could be classed alongside 'The Magnificent Seven' as an unnecessary remake. If you saw the original 1973 version it is hard not to make unfavorable comparisons. This is a solid, earnest undertaking which partially recreates the grim authenticity of the original but without its entertainment value and visceral punch. When you take away the charisma and chemistry of Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, the incredible score by Jerry Goldsmith and the sheer scale of the original's memorable opening scenes, what is left is a drab vanilla remake. Charlie Hunnam is a competent and likeable actor still in search of a director who can tap into his screen persona. Rami Malik lacks any character depth and keeps reminding the viewer of what a magnetically watchable actor Dustin Hoffman was. There is no excitement, no chemistry between the two leads and no humour. My recommendation is to not waste your time on this leaden remake and seek out Franklin J. Schaffner's original version.

  • May 15, 2020

    Why make it? It did make me want to read the book b/c it sucked. It had that.... "Hey look it's a movie!" type of feel.

    Why make it? It did make me want to read the book b/c it sucked. It had that.... "Hey look it's a movie!" type of feel.

  • Apr 09, 2020

    it's a really good adventure for those who want to learn something and valued what they already have , it's also a really good recommendation to those who's have a goal and want to achieve it badly .

    it's a really good adventure for those who want to learn something and valued what they already have , it's also a really good recommendation to those who's have a goal and want to achieve it badly .

  • Jan 28, 2020

    This movie was a master-class in acting and is worth it just for that. The story itself is super interesting (escaping from a prison colony?!), and the technical filming aspects were stunning. There are some slow parts in the middle, which is where some of the actors are really given the chance to shine, and they do so in spades.

    This movie was a master-class in acting and is worth it just for that. The story itself is super interesting (escaping from a prison colony?!), and the technical filming aspects were stunning. There are some slow parts in the middle, which is where some of the actors are really given the chance to shine, and they do so in spades.

  • Jan 20, 2020

    A very good movie that should never have been made. The actors were a good choice, and closely resembled McQueen & Hoffman, and the acting was often good but sometimes too mechanical. The photography was often better than the original, with newer technology, but sometimes worse, especially the 'too dark' scenes. Innocent people still go to jail today, this type of treatment of prisoners was normal in most of the world until the last century or so, and is still normal in most of the world, especially the third world, i.e. Mexico, South & Central America, most of Africa, the Middle East, and the far East. The original Papillon was just too close to perfect to try to do a remake and expect it to compare favorable. I was much more 'engaged' with the original movie and McQueen & Hoffman just messed together much better. This movie was good but like buying 2nd hand cloths at the thrift store...

    A very good movie that should never have been made. The actors were a good choice, and closely resembled McQueen & Hoffman, and the acting was often good but sometimes too mechanical. The photography was often better than the original, with newer technology, but sometimes worse, especially the 'too dark' scenes. Innocent people still go to jail today, this type of treatment of prisoners was normal in most of the world until the last century or so, and is still normal in most of the world, especially the third world, i.e. Mexico, South & Central America, most of Africa, the Middle East, and the far East. The original Papillon was just too close to perfect to try to do a remake and expect it to compare favorable. I was much more 'engaged' with the original movie and McQueen & Hoffman just messed together much better. This movie was good but like buying 2nd hand cloths at the thrift store...

  • Jan 01, 2020

    Was ok, I just wanted to see it cause it's one of the few books I've actually red. I remember liking the book so I gave this a go and i wasn't disappointed so I'd recommend it if you have 2 hours to spend and don't know what to spend it on.

    Was ok, I just wanted to see it cause it's one of the few books I've actually red. I remember liking the book so I gave this a go and i wasn't disappointed so I'd recommend it if you have 2 hours to spend and don't know what to spend it on.

  • Dec 15, 2019

    Yes, it's good. Yes, it's well-cast. Yes, it has good production values. But I continue to ask: Why bother with making it? The 1973 original is known and recognized for its excellence, and today's (younger) viewers are familiar with Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen as actors. This is not a situation of a remake in order to engage a new audience, so: Why bother?

    Yes, it's good. Yes, it's well-cast. Yes, it has good production values. But I continue to ask: Why bother with making it? The 1973 original is known and recognized for its excellence, and today's (younger) viewers are familiar with Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen as actors. This is not a situation of a remake in order to engage a new audience, so: Why bother?

  • Nov 29, 2019

    Great remake but I liked the original a bit more!

    Great remake but I liked the original a bit more!

  • Sep 16, 2019

    Papillon, a remake of the film under the same title starring the likes of acting giants Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, is a film that will hit or miss with some people. I can see some people loving this flick and some not enjoying it at all. I’m somewhere in the middle, more so enjoyed as it is a very good story as it is lifted right from a true story. I couldn’t shake Jax Teller (Sons of Anarchy) from Charlie Hunnam though. Over all it was a solid watch, I don’t foresee me going out of my way to watch again though.

    Papillon, a remake of the film under the same title starring the likes of acting giants Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, is a film that will hit or miss with some people. I can see some people loving this flick and some not enjoying it at all. I’m somewhere in the middle, more so enjoyed as it is a very good story as it is lifted right from a true story. I couldn’t shake Jax Teller (Sons of Anarchy) from Charlie Hunnam though. Over all it was a solid watch, I don’t foresee me going out of my way to watch again though.

  • Aug 23, 2019

    What a powerful and emotional movie!

    What a powerful and emotional movie!