Better than the 1973 Original?
Personally, I don't think this movie is better than the 1973 original. That was an exciting thriller movie, where the characters were actually smart, who knew what they were doing every step. This movie was absurd and unbelievable; the characters did only what was necessary to move the story through action scenes.
The Original Jackal, the blonde englishman played by Edward Fox, was an effective and spooky villain. Bruce Willis has played too many goofy and unrealistic hit-men over the course of his life to remain effective at it.
And man, did they leave stuff out! Why was the Bruce Willis character posing as a homosexual? I mean, how he satisfies himself is his own business, but shouldn't a man of his talents set apart some private time for chasing tail, instead of doing it while planning an assassination? In the original, there was a reason for it; he was posing as a gay french man because everybody was looking for him under the premise that he had raped and murdered a countess. (Who suspects a gay guy of doing that, right?)
The original had an arms dealer, but that arms dealer was smarter (he didn't ask the kind of questions guaranteed to get you killed) and built a realistic, compact .223 assassin's weapon, not some gigantic, hard-to-move 14.2mm cannon that sticks out like a sore thumb and needs a minivan to move around.
The original also had a forger who prepared his false documents, (which you kinda need if you're moving illegaly between countries, right?) and it was THIS guy who's stupidity got him killed.
I just can't stand it when people try to improve on old movies by re-rendering them in a contemporary setting. I guess I've got to accept that there will be bad remakes out there; just look at this movie. But there are good remakes, too; like the new Thomas Crown Affair. Wasn't as good as the original, but at least it was entertaining, in its own right.
Anyone else think this movie can't hold a candle to the original?