First, there was a true story of hope, endurance and daring escape from a tough prison in French Guayana in 1941.
Then came the controversial autobiography by the man who lived through it. Then we had a celebrated 1973's movie... and now there's a remake.
The original movie's stars Steve McQueen (the epitome of cool in 1960-70's Hollywood) of and Dustin Hoffman have been replaced by Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek which is surely an interesting choice.
Hunnam is in amazing physical shape but also a promising actor - a combo you don't see often -, while everybody likes Malek in "Mr. Robot" who's suitably nerdy counterpart for the other man's buffed-up torso.
Turns out, the new "Papillon" is much more action- and looking-cool-centered than the brainy original, so the new duo works out just fine.
To be precise, it's more of a Hunnam's one man show, giving him chances to both showcase the action man and the dramatic actor side of him, and he doesn't disappoint.
He really grabs the role by the balls and runs with it - grit, pain, unflittering instinct for survival, he made me buy all that.
He wouldn't look out of place among the next batch of male actor Oscar nominations, although "Papillon's" early showing in Toronto film festival in September 2017 may have ruined that (any wider release has followed only quite recently).
Anyway, the new "Papillon's" production values are great, everything looks downright amazing. The movie looks deliciously authentic even in smallest of details, from sweat-drops on characters' bodies to withered prison walls - not to mention 1931's Paris - a true movie lovers' dream.
Judging by IMDb, the Danish director Michael Noer seem has plenty of experience with screen stories about criminals, so the atmosphere is also appropriately macho and adrenaline-soaked.
So far, so good. Too bad it all doesn't stay that way. The movie achieves its high point somewhere around the middle point, when Papi gets out of the solitary confinement.
This section is pretty good in itself, making it psychologically hard to stomach both to hero and the viewer - no hope, no light, almost no words. But after that, one just can't ignore the fact that the story loses any real emotional punch it previously may have had.
The problem is that storytelling is sorely lacking some depth, regarding both any characters and the situation they are in.
Almost nothing they do is explained adequately, if at all. Why Papillon is so loyal to Louis Dega, for example? How does he survive the solitary so well, both physically and mentally? What keeps him going?
And we don't even get to know the basic facts about the intriuing prison environnment: what is the local hierarchy among prisoners? How do prisoners earn the money? For a 133 minute movie, it can really be surprisingly shallow.
In the end, we can only summarize that "Papillon" is a really cool-looking thriller about some cool-looking dudes. But it could have been something more.
The ingredients for making it all work are there - but the bar has been set just all too low.
My suggestion is to re-edit and expand the material to re-release it as a mini-series or something.
Surely the creative forces behind the camera have plenty of unused scenes and footage which wasn't used due to time restraints? Don't they always?
Then came the controversial autobiography by the man who lived through it. Then we had a celebrated 1973's movie... and now there's a remake.
The original movie's stars Steve McQueen (the epitome of cool in 1960-70's Hollywood) of and Dustin Hoffman have been replaced by Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek which is surely an interesting choice.
Hunnam is in amazing physical shape but also a promising actor - a combo you don't see often -, while everybody likes Malek in "Mr. Robot" who's suitably nerdy counterpart for the other man's buffed-up torso.
Turns out, the new "Papillon" is much more action- and looking-cool-centered than the brainy original, so the new duo works out just fine.
To be precise, it's more of a Hunnam's one man show, giving him chances to both showcase the action man and the dramatic actor side of him, and he doesn't disappoint.
He really grabs the role by the balls and runs with it - grit, pain, unflittering instinct for survival, he made me buy all that.
He wouldn't look out of place among the next batch of male actor Oscar nominations, although "Papillon's" early showing in Toronto film festival in September 2017 may have ruined that (any wider release has followed only quite recently).
Anyway, the new "Papillon's" production values are great, everything looks downright amazing. The movie looks deliciously authentic even in smallest of details, from sweat-drops on characters' bodies to withered prison walls - not to mention 1931's Paris - a true movie lovers' dream.
Judging by IMDb, the Danish director Michael Noer seem has plenty of experience with screen stories about criminals, so the atmosphere is also appropriately macho and adrenaline-soaked.
So far, so good. Too bad it all doesn't stay that way. The movie achieves its high point somewhere around the middle point, when Papi gets out of the solitary confinement.
This section is pretty good in itself, making it psychologically hard to stomach both to hero and the viewer - no hope, no light, almost no words. But after that, one just can't ignore the fact that the story loses any real emotional punch it previously may have had.
The problem is that storytelling is sorely lacking some depth, regarding both any characters and the situation they are in.
Almost nothing they do is explained adequately, if at all. Why Papillon is so loyal to Louis Dega, for example? How does he survive the solitary so well, both physically and mentally? What keeps him going?
And we don't even get to know the basic facts about the intriuing prison environnment: what is the local hierarchy among prisoners? How do prisoners earn the money? For a 133 minute movie, it can really be surprisingly shallow.
In the end, we can only summarize that "Papillon" is a really cool-looking thriller about some cool-looking dudes. But it could have been something more.
The ingredients for making it all work are there - but the bar has been set just all too low.
My suggestion is to re-edit and expand the material to re-release it as a mini-series or something.
Surely the creative forces behind the camera have plenty of unused scenes and footage which wasn't used due to time restraints? Don't they always?