Le chacal

I've never understood why The Jackal has been cursed with poor reviews from pretty much everybody. From the day I saw it as a 17-year-old in January 1998 I always found it entertaining and exciting. This might be down to the fact that I have never seen the 1973 original.

Brucie plays a nameless assassin, cool as ice and utterly emotionless. Richard Gere is the only man to have seen him. He's let out of prison to assist the FBI in catching the Jackal before he takes out an uncertain high-ranking official. Willis and Gere are, for the most part, leading their own movies as they never meet until the climax. It's very interesting watching them both go about their business, Willis hatching a master plan and Gere methodically picking apart his trail and hunting him down. There is great support from Sidney Poitier and cutie-pie Diane Venora as a scarred Russian cop.

With a wide variety of brilliantly photographed locations across the US and Canada, and plot with a medium-level of complexity it's not entirely brainless viewing but not too taxing as to alienate lazy viewers. I honestly do not get why so many people hate it. Willis has done far worse films (even seen Mercury Rising?) that get off scot-free somehow, but The Jackal doesn't get off so lightly. Aside from Gere's slightly dodgy Oirish accent I have no complaints about this film. Give it a chance and you might just be entertained.

I was sure this movie was going to be a disappointment, but after seeing it I have to say I was deeply wrong. Sure, the story has numerous big holes (Gere knows the operating technique of his opponent so well and down to the last detail, you'd think they used to live together from the moment they were born - total exaggeration, another example are the lame effects when he's between two trains), and Gere's dialect is way off (for some reason it didn't bother me at all), but the rest is pure action and entertainment extravaganza. Bruce Willis was a perfect choice for the Jackal and Sidney Poitier was as always amazing and really helped the atmosphere of the movie with his role. The ending was a bit short, but in my opinion necessary, because I knew what was going to happen, so why delay it. Nicely done, and great music. 7/10

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.

I thought that this was an intelligent thriller that lived up to the original. I thought that willis portrayed the perfect cold-blooded assassin. Richard Gere did a fine job as well. Even though you can tell his cheesey accent is a fake. This is not an action movie, so if you're expecting cars and planes blowing up, it doesn't happen. Even though one car blows up. This is a thriller and a good one at that.

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.