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.
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.