Papillon is the hardest kind of film to review, because it simply exists. On a technical level, it is mostly fine, with sets and costumes that are quite impressive and a script that avoids any major holes. But it also fails to ever do anything particularly well…and, sometimes, that feels worse than doing something wrong.
A remake of the 1973 Steve McQueen/Dustin Hoffman vehicle of the same name, Papillion made its way around the film festival circuit in 2017 before unceremoniously being dumped in the middle of August 2018. Charlie Hunnam stars as the titular safe cracker, who is framed for murder and sentenced for life to a penal colony in French Guiana. In an attempt to escape, he joins forces with Louis Dega (Rami Malek), a convicted counterfeiter in need of protection, while exposing the shockingly disturbing conditions that prisoners faced in the early 20th century.
Put simply, this film is just dull. At about 133 minutes, Papillon somehow feels much longer than it actually is thanks to a poorly-paced screenplay that takes far too long to get started. So much time is spent building the relationship between Papillon and Louis, yet the characters themselves are so poorly developed that their bond feels hollow and unbelievable. As great as Hunnam and Malek are in their parts – and they are quite good – they just don’t have the material to make the film work.
Meanwhile, the film also suffers as it tries to find a balance between “social issues drama” and “escape movie.” Its depiction of prisoner abuse is unquestionably troubling, but it never really conveys any greater meaning to the viewer. Even worse, the film is so poorly-paced that these moments feel too few-and-far-between to form any real thesis, or stay in the viewer’s mind long enough to inspire a response. It, quite simply, depicts brutal violence and trusts the viewer to know that the characters are being treated inhumanely.
The movie also doesn’t have the entertainment value to justify its long runtime and weak screenplay. This is a heavy film, with some disgustingly violent moments that are broken up by emotionally devastating sequences. Of course, a film doesn’t need to be happy or pleasant in order to be worth recommending – especially when it is set in prison. But, the fact that this film is hard to watch only drives home the point that Papillon barely contains any qualities worth writing home about. It’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to watch this film again – they could watch other, better, films of the same genre, which may be violent or disturbing but may also have artistic merit.
Hunnam and Malek are good in their parts, and deliver the sort of movie star performances that actually call to mind the old-school matinee stars that this film evokes. This is a particularly welcome vehicle for Hunnam, whose opportunities to show off his range, more often than not, fall flat. But, unfortunately, these performances don’t make the film worthy of a recommendation. Punishingly long, and filled with gruesome violence, this is the sort of movie that is best ignored – as the studio that released it already has.
Rating: 4/10
