Ohjaus:
Michael NoerKäsikirjoitus:
Aaron GuzikowskiKuvaus:
Hagen BogdanskiSävellys:
David BuckleyNäyttelijät:
Charlie Hunnam, Rami Malek, Eve Hewson, Tommy Flanagan, Roland Møller, Ian Beattie, Michael Socha, Yorick van Wageningen, Joel Basman, Nikola Kent (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (3)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Omaelämäkerralliseen klassikkoon perustuva Papillon kertoo pariisilaisen kassakaappien murtajan Henri "Papillon" Charrièren (Charlie Hunnam) hurjan tarinan, kun hänet lavastetaan murhaajaksi ja tuomitaan elinkautiseen rangaistussiirtolaan pahamaineineiselle Pirunsaarelle. Papillon lyöttäytyy yhteen omalaatuisen väärentäjän Louis Degan (Rami Malek) kanssa, kun Dega suostuu rahoittamaan Papillonin paon vastineeksi suojelustaan. Muodollinen sopimus unohtuu, kun veri, hiki ja yksin jäämisen pelko kietovat heidät yhteen ja miesten välinen ystävyys syventyy. (Future film)
(lisää)Arvostelut (5)
The production design is believable, the performances are pretty decent, the problem is that this is a story that didn’t needed a remake. The original film with McQueen and Hoffman is still fresh today and surpasses this remake in every aspect. Moreover, as charismatic as Hunnam is (as indeed he is), he doesn't cut it here, especially in the scenes in solitary confinement, and I don't feel, unlike McQueen, that he has suffered in any way or that the years of torment have had any effect on him. McQueen was a broken man at the end, still shaking the last of his strength out of him, Hunnam sort of gets away with it easy-peasy, and having his hair dyed white by makeup artists doesn't make him a suffering man. That aside, there's nothing otherwise explicitly wrong with this film, but it's completely redundant.
()
I haven't seen the original Papillon and I admit I've never even heard of it, so I'm actually glad for the remake and even though I can't compare, I'm definitely impressed with this film. In terms of the cast, the film is quite packed with the great Charlie Hunnam, the likeable Rami Malek or Michael Noer's famous Danish friend Roland Møller, whom I respect in every film. I like prison movies and this isolated island setting with its harsh rules suited me very well. The escape finale is built up to the max and there are a few fights and one great decapitation. Thrilling, entertaining, well acted and well shot. For me a great satisfaction and if it was not a remake this film would be in the red. 80%
()
When examining the reactions to the new version of Papillon, you often come across a feeling of desecration. It's as if it were blasphemy to make a second version of the legendary prison escape at the same time when you can watch yet another adaptation of "Les Misérables," where no one questions the constant recycling. I saw the original adaptation of Charrière's book 25 years ago, and that is one of the reasons why I don't want to compare both films. Steve McQueen was undoubtedly extraordinarily charismatic on screen, and Hoffman was one of the stars of character acting. However, the success of the film did not lie in them. It lay in the exceptional story of human will and tenacity. Rami Malek may not be the typical representative of the Parisian elite of the 1920s, but take it as it is. Neither he nor Charlie Hunnam bring disgrace to the craft of acting. The production is impressive, the excellent camera effectively captures the atmosphere of both fashionable Paris and the South American colony, as well as the suffering of the prisoners. Papillon is a worthy return to the adventure film genre in a time dominated by silly comic book movies and cheap horror films. I have no reason to criticize anything about this film and I had a good time with it. Overall impression: 90%.
()
Watching the new version of Papillon felt as if I had asked for tea, and someone had just poured hot water over an already used teabag. The film didn't make any impression on me whatsoever, the suffering of the prisoners was limited to rolling their eyes in solitary confinement, unless I count the few scenes from the road construction and The Bridge on the River Kwai could easily top that. The running time seemed endless, and I felt like I had wasted my time.
()
I quite regret not having seen the original Papillon with McQueen in the lead role yet. Especially since I ended up watching the new remake first. Well, it can’t be helped; I can’t compare them for now (but I’ll correct that eventually). The story of Henri Charrière is undeniably interesting, and I think casting Hunnam as the lead was a good choice. I personally consider Hunnam to be a likable actor (that’s part of why I also liked him in King Arthur), and I welcomed Rami Malek’s supporting role with open arms. As for the composition of the story, it presents weaker moments. While there are definitely many scenes that can emotionally engage you (the guillotine execution, solitary confinement, etc.), as a whole, it doesn’t hold together perfectly. There are also tedious dialogues and situations that don’t advance the main storyline. However, the gritty, naturalistic portrayal combined with the often pessimistic scenes on screen does save it to some extent—there’s no doubt about that. It probably didn’t disgrace the original, and the ending did catch my interest. Decent craftsmanship... but only that. Nothing more, nothing less. I give it 66%.
()
Mainos