After settling his differences with a Japanese PoW camp commander, a British colonel co-operates to oversee his men's construction of a railway bridge for their captors - while oblivious to a plan by the Allies to destroy it.
Henri "Papillon" Charierre is sentenced to life in prison and transported to the penal in French Guyana. Aboard ship on the voyage over, he meets Louis Dega, a forger. They form a bond that will last them a great many years. The conditions at the penal colony are horrific and Papillon desperately wants to escape. His first attempt ends quickly in failure and as a result he spends 2 years in solitary confinement. His next attempt is somewhat more successful and he actually spends a idyllic time with a tribe of Central America Indians. Once caught however, he does 5 years in solitary confinement. Once released, he decides to make one final attempt at freedom. Written by
The meaning of the film and source novel's title "Papillon" is "Butterfly" from the French language. It is pronounced, "PAP-PEE-YONH". Papillon also refers to the butterfly tattoo that Henri Charrière (Steve McQueen) has. Papillon is also the nickname given to Charrière. The title of the film Butterfly (1982) also refers to a Butterfly tattoo. See more »
During the sailboat escape, the boat is seen sailing right to left against the setting sun, that is, due south. But sailing from the prison in French Guyana would require sailing north and/or west. See more »
If I stay - here in this place -I will die!
See more »
I felt so moved after watching this film. Steve McQueen did a terrific job acting as Henry. Although at times, he just acted as McQueen, he did a wonderful job expressing suffering in the solitary confinement scene, and great towards the end of the movie. Hoffman is always an exceptional actor and in this movie he is no different. Unfortunately it neither won for, nor got nominated for an Oscar, and it deserved to win 3 (supporting actor, actor, picture). As much as I loved the Sting, this movie was better for that year.Some critics gave it a bad review, even a 1973 Roger Ebert article criticized this film. I guess you cant blame them too much, movies were better those days. Note that 1973 was sandwiched between 2 Godfather years.Maybe some people figured that McQueen was just redoing his Great Escape role. Either way, nowadays films are so bad I am just thirsting for a movie this deep. But if the best Hollywood can do nowadays is a glittzy trashpiece like Chicago, we cant expect too much from our times.
105 of 154 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?