MovieChat Forums > Roger Ebert Discussion > Roger Ebert's (dishonest) criticism of "...

Roger Ebert's (dishonest) criticism of "The Jackal"

posted 7 years ago by Wuchak (8737)
29 replies | jump to latest

Critics love to lambaste "The Jackal" (1997) because (1.) it deviates too much from the original 1973 film "The Day of the Jackal" and (2.) because of the mounting nonsensical elements. But (1.) “The Jackal” was made to stand on its own in late 90’s cinema and (2.) why do other action thrillers like James Bond get a pass when it comes to ridiculous plot holes? Besides, many of the supposed nonsensical moments can easily be cleared up if you pay attention to the details; perhaps not all of them, but most of them.

What I don’t like is the disingenuousness of many of the criticisms. For instance, Roger Ebert -- trying to be a smartaxx -- opens his criticism of the film by mocking the way The Jackal (Bruce Willis) sneaks into the USA from Canada by purchasing a sailboat and entering a race from Mackinaw to Chicago. Ebert reasoned that there are easier ways to enter the US inconspicuously along the 3000-mile border, but he left out an important detail: The Jackal was smuggling a huge computerized machine gun and its formidable mount. THAT is why he bought the yacht and used the race as a means to enter the country unnoticeably amidst a crowd of other crafts. Aduh.

If you're going to mockingly criticize a film, great; just make sure it's honest, based on legitimate flaws.

[–] Ken12602 (498) 7 years ago

Considering Mackinaw is in the US, it deserves to be mocked.

[–] Wuchak (8737) 7 years ago

The Jackal departed from Canada and proceeded to join-up with the race that started in Mackinaw, MI. What's to mock?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 4 years ago

I watched this film for the first time a few years ago. I remember it coming out in the 90s and was hyped by the trailer, but then the reviews were poor and I skipped it.

It was, overall, okay. Pretty average for its genre I suppose. It doesn't deserve to be heralded as anything more than that, but on the other hand it's not a terrible movie either.

I doubt I'll ever watch it again but I also didn't feel like I had wasted my time either.

[–] Wuchak (8737) 4 years ago

After the convoluted first act, the film settles into an entertaining political action flick not far removed from the tone of "The Saint" with Val Kilmer, released the same year. So I agree with you -- not great, but entertaining enough for what it is. I give it a B-/C+.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 4 years ago

The Saint is actually another one that I was disappointed by. I still remember going to see it. The trailers had me hyped, and then the movie was just OK.

[–] Wuchak (8737) 4 years ago

I agree.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Wasn't the mount made in the US? It's been a while since I've seen it but aside from probably a small satchel of documentation the only other thing I recall him smuggling in was the machine gun itself.

[–] kungfulord (957) 4 years ago

I think you are right, the gun was smuggle, the mount was crafted by Jack Black character who make a mistake and force Willis charater to have to aim manually

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I know for the movie they kind of just went with it but the mount wasn't at fault. Just from the purely shootist end of things... The optics are to be aligned with the firearm. If the target is in the scope and the bullet still misses it's a matter of either the optics or the gun being hosed. The mount doesn't play into it.

But in any case, the gun is still a relatively easy smuggle. The boat thing was a bit excessive.

[–] kungfulord (957) 4 years ago

Dont know much about The Jackal but Ebert and any other critic for that matter shoulnd't be taken so seriously the worst i read from him was the critic of Malena, he criticized things din't even happen in the movie and was clear he dint pay attention to the movie

[–] Wuchak (8737) 4 years ago

I've never seen "Malena," but I love Monica Bellucci, so I'll have to check it out.

[–] kungfulord (957) 4 years ago

Is a great movie Tornattore is a great director i recomend to watch the Italian cut

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6360) 2 years ago

And of course he doesn't give any examples by which we might judge whether he knows what he's talking about.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/malena-2000#:~:text=It%20doesn't%20help%20that,%2C%20alas%2C%20than%20it%20can.

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

I mostly agree with Siskel and Ebert: The Jackal wasn't a good movie. I maybe liked it a little more than they did, but it is (at best) a ho-hum action thriller.

But I do find it interesting that you compare The Jackal to Bond films regarding their plausibility. I don't have a good answer, but I will be turning over in my head the idea that one film gets a "pass" for a plothole or an eye-rolling break with suspension of disbelief while others do not.

Here's what I know is true: From Russia with Love is my favourite Bond flick and I love that movie. Yet, it has a periscope in the Russian embassy, which is ludicrous. In another movie, I would hate that. In FRWL, I don't care. Why? What is it about the Bond films that lets them get away with it? It's not limited to Bond (and to be honest, the Jackal's goofy plot elements didn't bug me so much as its forgettableness did), but it is true that some movies will have me go, "Oh, come on," while others just leave me munching popcorn.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6360) 2 years ago

lol! Isn't ho-hum exactly antithetical to the main appeal of a thriller?

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's why I don't think it's a good movie.

It's not a "bad" movie. It had okay action scenes, some okay acting - it just painted by numbers and didn't really do anything memorable. I think the best thing I could say about it is that while watching it it's okay. That's about it.