(For the record that is Malek on the left and Hunnam on the right!)


As I was watching “Papillon” a few thoughts went through my mind such as:

1) Why did I come to see this movie?

2) When will I learn it is okay to walk out of a boring movie?

3) Charlie Hunnam could walk into Daniel Craig’s shoes as James Bond and I don’t many would know the difference.

4) Hopefully Rami Malek’s next movie as Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody” will be a big hit because as he tries to make the move from television star, with his series “Robot” going into its last season, “Papillon” isn’t helping him.

5) Why does Hollywood continue to spend millions on making remakes when very few are as good, and even few better, than the originals? Especially those that are thought of as classics or have had unforgettable leads?

6) Does adding more violence and/or more nude males in prison make a movie better?

7) Though I am not familiar with previous works of Charlie Hunnam he does express a lot with just his face and emotions he is feeling but, right now, he is not quite the Steve McQueen of the 1973 original “Papillon”.

Obviously, my thoughts strayed as I was watching the movie or turning my head away with some of the gratuitous violence but the bottom line is the story screenplay and none of the actors drew me into the movie to knock those thoughts out of my head.

The next remake coming up is “A Star Is Born” starring Bradley Cooper, who also directed, and Lady Gaga. I have seen and am a fan of the original and the two remakes, each for different reasons, and am hoping this new version will be the exception to the rule about remakes and be their equivalent.

The bottom line is I found “Papillon” a bore and would suggest you watch the original as that is a film that Hollywood doesn’t make, a two-star action prison film epic that you really believed happened.

Movie trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqj7XOv9mC8