Le chacal

The main purpose of this movie is to show Bruce Willis in a villain character, the very first of his career. He will do a few more, later, in the late 2010's, in direct to DVDs craps. I like this Michael Caton Jones feature, it is a fast paced action movie, tense, on the condition you don't compare with the Zinneman's feature of course. I was waiting for a face to face between Gere and Willis, I found it very interesting, exciting and I was not deceived. But I still don't know what Sid Poitier, already an old timer, did in this film. But he's good, as usual. And for the first time in his career, he doesn't play a Black man role; his character could have been played by a Chinese, Arab, White actor. Poitier who, all long his life, symbolized the Civil Rights fight. The best moments are when Willis kills people, watch out for this face; he is absolutely exquisite.

I entered the theater with fond memories of Fred Zinnemann's 1973 "Day of the Jackal", expecting a chance to scoff at a butchered remake of a fine, suspenseful and tensely-paced film. After the first half-hour or so, it suddenly occurred to me that what I was seeing was not a remake at all, but a parody. Then I began to enjoy myself.

Watching to see what modern filmmaking sensibilities had made of the more memorable scenes from the original kept me thoroughly entertained for the rest of the show. Edward Fox's neat little sniper's rifle--with its disguise constructed from a marvelous, high-tech material called "stainless steel"--metamorphosed into an immense carbon-fiber contraption suitable for demolishing an armored battalion. Fox's deadly silent assassination of a cantaloupe turned into a market-garden recreation of the Battle of the Bulge. And so on.

I don't think my companion, or anyone else in the theater, appreciated my snickers and occasional belly laugh. Too bad. I had a great time.

You can't really approach this as a remake of the classic 'The Day of The Jackal.' Though broadly similar, the entire feel of the two films is incomparable. And suspense thrillers are all about "the feel" aren't they?

The story is pretty standard fair - a super villain assassin (Willis) is going to make a big kill using a huge weapon and leaving a trail of bodies along the way. Gere, an IRA soldier (jailed for "terrorism") is brought on as consultant because he is one of the few people who has seen 'the Jackal", and given a few vague promises in exchange for his help. As it turns out, Gere has more than just knowledge - he has a vendetta. Poitier oversees Gere and the investigation of Willis, and comes to realize that Gere is the only hope of stopping him.

I like Sidney Poitier, Bruce Willis and Richard Gere, so I was predisposed to like this film. I was neither very surprised nor disappointed. The Jackal is entertaining and the performances are strong. Poitier is always a class act, and Willis and Gere have terrific anti-chemistry. There's nothing wrong with the cinematography or directing, and the pace of the film, though a little breathless, is fine. Regardless, the story-line never reached much beyond the ordinary thriller fare. Making a truly great thriller requires either doing something really original (very hard to do) or using a truly inspired script. This film's script is decent, but the story line could have used a little more careful thought and a bit more complexity.

The picture deals the known history about Jackal.Bruce Willis stars as an ice cold series killer,he's employed by the Russian Mafia wants avenge for a FBI intervention in its issues and his target is allegedly killing FBI's chief. Jackal is an unknown man and he's solely known by a convict terrorist from IRA named Declan(Richard Gere).He's given a bargain by an experienced FBI official(Sidney Poitier)and his group(Diane Venora,J.K.Simmons) and the chase,the manhunt, is on to find the vicious killer escaped with ominous purports.They team up to catch the biggest world hired murderer.Declan contacts with an ex-ETA terrorist(Mathilda May)who had a deep relationship with Jackal.Meanwhile the unemotional murderer is preparing the hired assassination and buys technological weapon to an arms-crafter(Jack Black)what are experimented in alive(in similar scenes from the first version with Cryl Cusak).

The picture contains lots of action,suspenseful,past paced thriller,intrigue,tension but at times it seems too similar to another action films.Agreeable chemistry between Richard Gere and Sidney Poitier along with excellent action sequences like as the breathtaking final game in the subway are someone of the worthwhile items in this rehash from the classical Day of Jackal.Willis,Gere and Poitier,the trio protagonist, make a solid portrayal of their characters backed by a splendid secondary casting. The film is based in Frederick Forsyth's best selling novel of political intrigue previously adapted successful by Fred Zinnemann with Edward Fox.However here is quite different,but the target is political ,the general Charles de Gaulle by the OAS(terrorist organization anti-independence Algeria),while in this film is apparently the FBI's director. Colorful cinematography with beautiful locations by Karl Walter Lindenlaub and enjoyable music by Carter Burwell .The motion picture is regularly directed by Michael Caton Jones.

I had a bit of fun reading through user comments on Jackal, and there are two perpetuating issues in about 90 percent of them: 1) this "version" of "Jackal" has nothing on the original (because the original was "oh so great") 2) only idiots enjoyed this version (because its plot is silly).

My response would be: 1) the original wasn't so great either (go ahead and jump at me) 2) anybody who thinks only an idiot would enjoy silly movies is an idiot himself.

On the first point - why is even so necessary to compare remakes to originals if they can stand perfectly on their own? This one can. In fact it even has advantages over its classic predecessor, such as better editing, better cinematography and even better acting. You may think I'm holding onto a straw here by nitpicking but I'm an odd person that values the benefits of modern productions.

On the second point - if silliness (better yet stupidity) of the plot was the criteria by which to avoid the movie, I would probably have seen only about a dozen movies in my lifetime. I would have avoided Bond movies, period movies, parodies and what not. And I'd be poorer for that. So, forget silliness, it's no big deal.

Now a little on the movie itself. The plot is indeed stupid (for an in-depth analysis I recommend reading hilarious Roger Ebert's review). The cast reversal is also a bit of misfortune as Gere was initially supposed to be the Jackal. The fact that the role eventually went to Bruce Willis, together with adventuristic nature of Jackal's business, made me root for the bad guy as I never did before. He is conceived as sort of an upgraded James Bond here, being more ruthless, with drier sense of humor and taking advantage of both sexes (not only females) to his cause.

I don't know if making bad guy look good was the intention on part of the film crew, but it turned out a very subversive move for a typical Hollywood venture (making an IRA terrorist that pursues Jackal a likable guy as well is probably another one, but I wont go into that). All in all, it was a suspenseful voyage with such a good pace that you don't care about the shortcomings at the first viewing, so I say it's recommendable. There are certainly far worse ways you could waste two hours.