After reading the diary of an elderly Jewish man who committed suicide, freelance journalist Peter Miller begins to investigate the alleged sighting of a former SS-Captain who commanded a ... See full summary »
It is the early 60s in France. The remaining survivors of the aborted French Foreign Legion have made repeated attempts to kill DeGaulle. The result is that he is the most closely guarded man in the world. As a desperate act, they hire The Jackal, the code name for a hired killer who agrees to kill French President De Gaulle for half a million dollars. We watch his preparations which are so thorough we wonder how he could possibly fail even as we watch the French police attempt to pick up his trail. The situation is historically accurate. There were many such attempts and the film closely follows the plot of the book. Written by
John Vogel <email@example.com>
When the Jackal meets the weapons supplier in Genoa, there is a picture of John F. Kennedy on the cover of an Italian magazine reporting on President Kennedy's recent visit to Europe. The scene is set on 2 August 1963, about three months before Kennedy himself was assassinated. See more »
It appears there is some confusion over the rank of the Special Branch officer played by Tony Britton. In the film's dialog he is called Chief Superintendent Thomas by Mallison and other characters in the British segment, but is Called Inspector Thomas in the end titles. See more »
August 1962 was a stormy time for France. Many people felt that President Charles de Gaulle had betrayed the country by giving independence to Algeria. Extremists, mostly from the Army, swore to kill him in revenge. They banded together in an underground movement, and called themselves the OAS.
See more »
The closing credits roll over a lion statue at the Élysée Palace, the residence of the President of France. See more »
Proof that creativity and 'Hollywood formulas' are at cross purposes.
Many films of recent years have had the potential to live on and become "classics," but all too often the 'Hollywood formula' for success makes them obsolete in a few short years. Having seen the 1997 remake, I was reluctant to watch the original, released in 1973. But I am certainly glad that I did. I would probably rate the original version a 9 had I not seen the newer one but I couldn't resist comparing the 2 and ultimately giving it a 10. It's historical accuracy might leave you wondering whether it is a true story or not because all of the characters are genuine and believable. It is intriguing, clever and offers a bit of suspense, all in the absence of romantic departures, gratuitous sex and unexplained violence. It's a well-researched, well-written story that was expertly adapted to film.
99 of 114 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?