scott-donaldson

For better or worse, the series leaves us with many characters dead, that we never got the chance to care about.

When we compare this series with an iconic series like "Breaking Bad".. how many characters did we get attached to in BB? Even by the end of season 1 in BB there were around 6 that we had some feelings for.

For the audience to care, for death to have meaning, the scriptwriters need to care also.

One of the missed opportunities in the series was the casting of Bianca. Lashana Lynch followed the storyline obediently, navigating woodenly the violent portrayal of a woman struggling between the spy-world of intrigue and manipulation, and the estranged family life she longs for. She could have made the role her own, made the audience care, but lacked the acting range or force of will to break through the cliches to connect with viewers.

In Jackal, all the characters except the lead are shadows; disposable and superficial. And that is the series greatest failing.

There are many ways that skilful writers can deliver a narrative arc that shows the psychological fragmentation of a character. This episode is a lesson in bad scriptwriting.

I will avoid spoilers here, but simply note the following bad scriptwriting tricks: 1. The Jackal needs something from his home base to connect the next part of the plot. Implausibly, another character complies to deliver this.

2. Until now, the Jackal has been the consummate assassin, and the model psychopath. In this episode he develops a conscience.

3. Perhaps aware of the character deviation taking place, there are cut scenes showing flashbacks to the Jackal's army days -- lamely attempting to justify the new character arc.

4. The 'coup de grâce' to Jackal's new character arc, occurs at the end. And perhaps you too will wonder whether the plot twist is used just to distract viewers from the other bad scripting decisions in this episode.

A more clinical approach to the 'hired assassin' genre was provided by Fincher's 2023 movie "The Killer".

This clumsy episode has damaged the whole series.

It is unfair to compare the series with the movie -- so often critics will score low any adaptation that lacks the power of the original. So I will start by saying that my disappointment did not come from there.

Even though Ritchie directed both the movie and the series, the movie is tighter and more cohesive. The series in my opinion is an example of style over substance.

Theo, portrays the lead character whose narrative arc begins as a soldier, lacks any apparent emotional or romantic connections, who drifts along a criminal path and wholeheartedly embraces ruthless murder by the end. Are we meant to cheer when his moral decay leads to the cold-blooded execution of his rivals?

The inclusion of the wonderful Giancarlo Esposito in the plot is wasted, as we are expected to believe that this criminal mastermind happily embraces imprisonment at the end. Really?

Others have commented on the comedrama elements of the series. However, Ritchie employs this technique lazily, and assumes the audience is fully onboard, happily embracing the nudges and winks. When there is no emotional investment in the characters however, no one cares.