Following the suicide of an elderly Jewish man, a journalist in possession of the man's diary investigates the alleged sighting of a former SS captain, who allegedly commanded a concentration camp during WWII.
John Preston is a British agent with the task of preventing the Russians detonating a nuclear explosion next to an American base in the UK. The Russians are hoping this will shatter the 'special relationship' between the two countries.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The novel and film adaptations of "The Day of the Jackal" caused the London Public Records and Passport offices to tighten their regulations to avoid/reduce the chance of anybody stealing and using a deceased person's identity, as the Jackal carried out. See more »
(at around 46 mins) When the Jackal is picking up his sniper rifle, the gunsmith takes out a box of ammunition. He says that he took out six bullets to make them explosive. The box in the background has seven bullets missing. 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 Cross of Lorraine, a symbol General Charles de Gaulle used during his lifetime, appears at the beginning of the film. 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.
109 of 126 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?