Unnecessary and so-so remake of the year: Michael Noer/Aaron Guzikowski's PAPILLON

TrustMovies does not in any way want to demean or make seem less awful the experiences of those poor prisoners condemned to life (and often death) in the penal colony of French Guiana, which was composed of several prison "camps," one worse than the next. The common name given for this multi-prison was Devil's Island, any escape from which was thought impossible.

Still, it must be said that sitting through this oft-times interminable two-hours-and-seventeen-minute, "Let's- keep-trying-to-escape-from-this-hell-hole-until-we-go-nuts!" remake of PAPILLON felt like a prison sentence in itself for this particular viewer.

The original Papillon, which arrived on screen back in 1973 -- directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and offering the stunt-casting pairing of that golden boy narcissist Steve McQueen and Oscar-winner/scene stealer, Dustin Hoffman -- was no great shakes in itself, clocking in even longer at two hours and thirty-one minutes.

In the new version , directed by Danish filmmaker Michael Noer (shown at right), with a screenplay by Aaron Guzikowski, which he adapted from both the memoirs by Devil's Island prisoner Henri Charrière and the original screenplay by Dalton Trumbo and Lorenzo Semple, Jr. the shakes are a good deal less. Just about everything concerning this latest Papillon seems adequate but little more.

This adequacy begins with the film's two stars, both of whom I have greatly enjoyed elsewhere -- Charlie Hunnam (above) in just about everything in which he has ever appeared, and Rami Malek (below), whom I know best from cable TV's fun and fierce Mr. Robot series.

Mr. Hunnam spends his time either playing action hero or showing us his soulful/dour side, while Mr. Maleck handles his weak-little-nerd-with-glasses role as, well, a weak little nerd with glasses. Neither actor has much of a chance to do more, given the one-dimensional screenplay which gets the story told but not much else. (The occasionally soaring musical score, by David Buckley, seems to take the place of acting or writing in terms of pointing up the important moments here.)

The scenery is pretty enough -- seaside, island, jungle stuff -- and the director and screenwriter cram in as much glamour, sex and sin as possible in the first few minutes. Because, after that, it's all prison-plus-escape-attempts, all the time.

The tale itself is indeed one of the greatest "great escape" stories ever told, even in this not-so-hot version. Perhaps the 45 years between the release of the original film and this remake will introduce a bunch more movie-goers to M. Charrière and his semi-fictional story.

Papillon, released by Bleecker Street, opens nationwide this Friday, August 24. I'll post South Florida theaters once they're sent to me. Meanwhile, you can click here and then scroll down and click on FIND THEATERS & TICKETS to view the screening locations nearest you.

The Daniels' -- Kwan & Scheinert -- SWISS ARMY MAN: great title, problematic movie

If you value originality above all else, SWISS ARMY MAN, might just be your cup of poop, piss or regurgitated liquids. Yes, it's gross, all right, and I suspect it wins hands-down the current movie record for the near-constant use of farting. But at least, unlike so many of those would-be comedies meant for the eight-year-old minds of stunted adults, the farts here are, yep, original. They're also amazing and usually amusing -- used as they are for bizarre plot devices, visual effects and finally as an all-encompassing symbol of what civilized society deems crass.

Beginning with its spot-on title -- yes, one of our two "heroes" is very much like that famous uber-functional knife with which many of us grew up: packed with so many pull-outs it seemed an all-purpose life-saver -- the movie is clever and shocking but also very astute psychologically and cinematically. As written and directed by a pair of first-time/full-length filmmakers -- Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert -- who bill themselves as "Daniels" (as in "a film by Daniels"), Swiss Army Man was said to be the strangest movie ever to screen at Sundance. Now that we've seen it, TrustMovies feels it's safe to say that it may also be the strangest ever to screen in a mainstream movie house. (Those are the filmmakers, above, with Mr. Kwan shown center, Mr. Scheinert, center, right, flanked by stars Paul Dano, right, Daniel Radcliffe center, left, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, left.)

The story here, as you may have by now heard, involves a young man named Hank (Mr. Dano) somehow stranded on an island in the middle of the sea who, having given up on any rescue, is about to "off" himself when he notices a body (Mr. Radcliff's) that seems to have washed up onshore. From there, perhaps the most bizarre of buddy movies begins to unfold.

Where and how the tale maneuvers is so strange and unsettling; funny, sad and unnerving; occasionally believable but more often the stuff of fantasy that you will find yourself trying to figure out just what the filmmaker' intentions really are. Is this a tale of desperation so severe and encompassing that the desperate man will of course invent/imagine whatever he must in order to survive? Sure looks that way.

But as the movie moves forward, there seems to be more at stake here. What kind of a fellow is our Hank? And is Manny (the name Hank gives to that washed-up body) entirely a whole-cloth creation of Hank's? What transpires includes everything from sex education to cross-dressing to the appearance of some very large and obstinate hard-ons from Manny, brought on by an old girlie magazine and a photo of Ms Winstead that occasionally appears on a cell phone.

How all this is possible on an island in the middle of the sea is one of the question that arise, as our buddies grow closer, while managing to avoid anything sexual between them. (Although an apology of sorts, using that old stand-by "I was really drunk last night!", does surface along the way.)

Above all else, it's the relationship between these two young men that matters most, except that the relationship is completely one-sided and serves mainly to build what we finally learn about Hank's character -- who he actually is and what has really happened. To this end, Mr. Dano proves yet again to be the sort of remarkable young actor who can handle whatever role comes his way. (And this may be the strangest and most difficult he'll ever have.)

For his part, Mr. Radcliffe seems bent on doing all in his power to counteract his Harry Potter image, and he's doing a fine job of it. From diverse Broadway roles to the most oddball movies (and they don't get more oddball than this), he is stretching himself and proving quite adept at the stretch. If here, he must play the "best pal" role as it has never been played before, he gives it his all -- which is more than enough.

In the home stretch, however, it must be said that the movie does fall apart (and then falls apart all over again). Things have been withheld from us that make all the difference, and while this might be perfectly OK for some movies, here it rather wrecks things. I cannot elaborate because that would result in a major spoiler. Suffice it to say that, of all things, the Daniels appear to want to offer up something as mainstream as "feel-good" -- after all they've done to work around that usual bill of fare. So Swiss Army Man becomes a movie by two very smart guys who don't quite know when to stop and consequently get a little too close to what you might call "smarty pants."

Their movie, distributed by A24 and running 95 minutes, opened in New York and Los Angeles over the past weekend, and hits a lot of other cities this week. On Friday, July 1, it opens here South Florida all over the place -- from Regal's Shadowood, Cypress Creek and Sawgrass to AMC's Aventura and Sunset Place, Muvico's Broward and Parisian, Delray's Frank Theaters Cinebowl, Fort Lauderdale's Classic Gateway, Coconut Grove's Cinepolis USA, and Miami's O Cinema Wynwood. Elsewhere? Absolutely. Click here and all the theaters near you should pop right up....

The photo of the actors and filmmakers, 

second from top, is by Jeff Vespa, 

courtesy of Getty Images.

Island life? Yikes! Dayna Goldfine/Daniel Geller's THE GALAPAGOS AFFAIR: SATAN CAME TO EDEN

When many of us think about The Galapagos Islands (off the coast of Ecuador), the first thing that may come to mind is the seamy/ sleazy use of those islands in the Tennessee Williams play (and movie based on that play), Suddenly Last Summer. We think of those famous turtles, and then perhaps of Williams' character of Sebastian, much talked of but never actually seen, and his gaudy demise. One of those Galapagos turtles is viewed to enormous effect in the new documentary THE GALAPAGOS AFFAIR: SATAN CAME TO EDEN, and its huge size and large, expressive face are among the strangest and most beautiful things in this very strange film. Local lore has it that these turtles can size up a newcomer to the island immediately, knowing if s/he is bound for a good or a bad end.

By the time you've seen that turtle's face again and come to the conclusion of this eye-opening, mind-expanding, two-hour documentary -- written, produced and directed by the team of Dayna Goldfine and Daniel Geller (shown above, flanking actor Thomas Kretschmann, who voiced one of the characters here), you can only imagine what the old, heavy-shelled fellow determined about the folk you've just met -- most of whom are German and several of whom have come to very bad ends. (You may also, if you're anything like me, be wondering what it was about post-WWI/pre-WWII Germany that made for such delicious, often nasty decadence and stupidity. Christopher Isherwood was certainly onto something in his Berlin Stories!)

We know from the start that bad things happened -- but to whom, how and why become the mystery of the film. The filmmakers, however, are interested in much more than mere mystery. The Galapagos Affair tackles the very idea of '"island paradises" and probes the kind of character traits and human beings who would elect to struggle so far afield from the way most of humanity lives. The original German emigres to the Galapagos were Dore Strauch and Friedrich Ritter (shown above, with Ritter on the right), lovers who had left their respective mates to come and live as "pioneers," even though Strauch had been recently diagnosed with Multiple schlerosis. Almost immediately these two are in trouble.

Joining this odd pair on Floreana (one of the smaller islands), though uninvited, comes the family Wittmer -- father, pregnant mother and their son (shown above soon after their daughter was born on the island) -- expecting evidently (because they, too, are German) to be welcomed with open arms.

And then comes the pièce de résistance, a would-be "Baroness" (above, right) and her two lovers, with big plans to build a hotel resort on the island, who arrive and immediately, by sheer force of "entitlement," try to take over the island.

As word of these strange people reaches civilization, newspaper and magazine articles (above and below) appear, ships occasionally dock and scientists and others arrive to see how the oddities are faring. Jealousies and tensions mount, a severe drought occurs and finally...  well, you really had to be there.

Thanks to Ms Goldfine and Mr. Geller, who earlier gave us the terrific documentary Ballet Russes, we are there. The filmmakers have elected to tell their story the old-fashioned way -- no "dramatic re-enactments" here -- using some wonderful archival footage, along with the many letters and other writings of several of the participants (given voice by some very high-end actors: Cate Blanchett, Diane Kruger, Sebastian Koch, Connie Nielsen, Gustaf Skarsgård, Josh Radnor and Herr Kretschmann).

There are also interviews with a host of talking heads (I counted 16 such) who are descendants of the original characters or have simply lived in the Galapagos for decades. People like Carmen Kubler Angermeyer (right) and Jose Machuca (below) provide lots of information and ideas about not only what happened to this bizarre crew but why certain folk choose

this kind of lifestyle. Together with the archival footage and information, and the many interviews with Galapagos residents, we begin to build up a real knowledge of what island life must be like. Finally, when a woman named Friedel Horneman (below) tells us of her early life, arranged marriage and her means of

escaping same, although none of this figures into the main story thread, it suddenly stands on its own as a kind of perfect example of "Galapagosiana" and how island life can make one do the oddest things. Along the way, we're also treated to actual footage from a "pirate movie" filmed by, I believe, one of those ship's captains, and starring the Baroness (overacting to beat the band) and her motley crew.

By the finale, the movie has turned into a Rashomon-like experience calling for the old Pontius Pilate question, What is truth? Considering all the little liars on view here, my final response was a huge sigh and the thought that "Wow-- this absolutely could not have happened to a nicer bunch of people!" As one of the talking heads tells us at the close, "Paradise is not a place. It's a philosophy." If so, it's one that is nowhere to be found in the lives of these 1930s nitwits.

The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden, from Zeitgeist Films, opens this Friday, April 4, in New York City at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema, on April 11 in San Francisco at the Embarcadero Center Cinema, and in Los Angeles at Laemmle's Royal on April 18.

After (and sometimes during) these weeks, the film will slowly expand across the country. To see all currently scheduled playdates, with cities and theaters, simply click here and then use the sidebar at right to scroll down....

The graphics above are from the film 

itself, except for the photo of the filmmakers, 

which is by Jason Kempin and comes 

courtesy of Getty Images.

You watch THIS movie in a different mode -- THE ANCHORAGE opens at NYC's AFA

Filmed in Sweden's Stockholm Archipelago, THE ANCHORAGE begins with a bit of cinema verité: a pitch-black screen from which, very eventually, sounds begins to emerge: insects, birds, wind and more. Light slowly dawns, and why not?  If it's dark out, then it's dark on-screen: No day-for-night stuff here!  Soon we have a scene of nude bathing in the Baltic Sea by a woman somewhere between middle and old age, who, my companion noted, looks better with cloths than without.  No turn-ons, either.

This woman, above, is named Ulla and it is she whom we follow for some 87 minutes, including credits, as she bathes, breakfasts, fishes, mends nets, bids goodbye to a daughter and daughter's friend, walks (a lot), watches and listen to TV/radio, checks the weather (on-line, I think), travels to what passes for a town on the island on which she lives, and only very occasionally offers a kind of diary entry featuring a thought and desire or two.  Ooops. I've broken my cardinal rule and given away the plot.  Except it isn't really a plot at all -- just life being lived, and then edited briskly down so that we don't go bonkers from boredom. And the film is not boring, exactly, nor will it be terribly involving -- unless you're willing to let go of many of the expectations that accompany normal movie-watching.

Letting go may be a struggle, but if you succeed, The Anchorage, a first-film from American C.W Winter (above, left) and Swede Anders Edström (above, right) may please and sustain you. (TrustMovies succeeded maybe halfway.)

In the directors' statement (part of the press material for the film), we are told, "Life has nothing to do with dramatic progression but is instead a long and continuous movement made up of an infinity of micro-movements."  In 1921, a young Jean Epstein issued a call-to-arms for a narrative cinema in which image would at last overturn its submission to text.  (Ed's note: I presume the quote above is from Epstein.) The Anchorage is a film made in this spirit.  It's a film that values continuous movement over predestination.  It's a consideration of the wide-open potential of a narrative cinema that is freed from the constraints of denouement.  It's a film about the passage of time, both in life and in movies themselves.  

OK. But why this woman? Well, one life as good as another, right? Maybe. However, one performer is not always as good as another, and Ulla is a performer, whether she likes it or not. Compare her "performance" with that of Nev Schulman's in Catfish, and you'll get my point. The movie's location is perhaps the key. It's special -- and worth spending time in. And since Ulla lives in this location, it is she with whom we spend our time.

When the filmmakers' camera is at work, it's generally stationary, quietly observing everything from the sea to the wind in the trees, a crossword puzzle and a needy dog.   Choice, of course, is all, and I think I might have made some different choices were I directing. Though, since I can't know all the many moment there were to choose from, who knows?

In any case, we watch daily life being lived on this sparsely inhabited island where one's existence is exceptionally "cut-off." (When Ulla listens to the news, it's all about the U.N.'s sanctions against North Korea and bull-sperm farming -- hardly things that impact on her own life. Little wonder it appears to be the weather report that interests her most.)

In one scene, as Ulla sits inside her house, we see someone approach on the outside and we think, Ah -- a visitor!  Some interaction!  Don't bet on it.  Instead we're alone with Ulla, just as she is (mostly) alone on the island. There's a nod to global warming, fish being de-boned and beheaded, thoughts of a husband left or dead, and mostly that ever-present wind. For a movie in which nothing much happens, this one is not nearly as dull or boring as you might think. It's beautiful, in its way, and may make you wonder about, and maybe wish for, a more solitary life.

The Anchorage opens today, September 17, at Anthology Film Archives in Manhattan. Click here for the schedule of performances, and then click the arrow next to "Filter by Program" (in the upper right quadrant) and then click on Premiere/Revivals. Following its AFA playdate, the film is expected to move to other locations, including Cambridge's Harvard Film Archive, Seattle's Northwest Film Forum, Pointlignelan/Le Fémis in Paris and Los Angeles' California Institute of the Arts.