El chacal

Comparing this movie with the original film, The Day of the Jackal (1973), from which this was adapted, I would say this new version is just okay. The original film is simply extraordinary and if you haven't seen it, I sincerely recommend that you do it today and compare by yourself.

Not sure why this movie seems so low rated, it's well worth a view ! It's fast paced with a number of strong actors and characters portrait very well by them. Maybe the story is not entirely believable, it seems that some leads are obtained a bit too easy, but does that matter? It's just great, action packed, clever, and if you like crime it should keep you on the edge of your chair. No, it's not like the original but I don't think the makers set out to do this. It would have been a crime to do that actually as the original is in it's own an excellent movie and remakes are most of the time disappointing. Go watch it, buy the DVD!

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.

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'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.