Jack Reacher Doesn't Reach High Enough

Being a volunteer of the TIFF festival, I was among the many who gained an opportunity to watch a film, that has not been yet released in theaters, for free. I walked into the TIFF Bell Lighthouse with no expectations (and thus - an open mind) as they never told us what movie we were going to be seeing. It was only in the opening credits where we saw "A Tom Cruise Production", did we realize it was Jack Reacher. The film is based off of Lee Child's novel called One Shot.

Unfortunately, I already knew the plot before watching the movie. Trailers are an important marketing technique as they offer a hint. A good trailer is like a tease - it leaves you wanting more. But some trailers give it all away. Case in point - Jack Reacher's trailer pretty much gave everything away simply because some of the best scenes are in the trailers. There was enough scenes for me to make an accurate guess at the story. From the trailer alone, I knew Jack was going to be a brilliant and dangerous loner who cares only for doing the right thing. I knew there would be action, romance, comedy with a pretty much standard plotline.

There was action. Car chases, gun violence and fist fights. Unlike his Mission Impossible series, there were no stunts that left the audience talking about as most of the violence and fighting has been seen in other movies that do it better.

There was hints of romance. The UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) between Tom Cruise and the classically beautiful former Bond girl Rosamund Pike (who played defense lawyer, Helen) was there right from the initial beginning. And there is a glimpse of Tom's body (not bad considering he's 50) and the backside of a random blonde. Romance makes out about 2% of the film though.

The comedy was a surprise. It was funnier then I expected. There was plenty of dark and dry humor that Tom managed to pull off well. Even the crowd that wasn't that excited to see the film, laughed in appreciation.

The plotline was standard for a crime thriller. In the end, it's all about the money and to keep their secrets, Helen is kidnapped. Of course, you all should know what happens afterwards. But if you don't, well I won't spoil it for you.

It's decent enough but I doubt I would ever watch it again just for fun. A good movie for the guys and some ladies but I wouldn't recommend this for a first-date move.

I apologize for the review being brief but the movie did not do anything for me. I did not love it - I wouldn't watch it twice just for fun like I do with the Bond/Bourne series. I did not hate it - like I did the 2010 Takers which I spent days wishing back for the lost hours and ranting to everyone not to watch that film. I didn't like it and I didn't dislike it. It was just there - and in a way, that's the worst way you can describe a film because it didn't inspire any passion within their audience.

Rating: 2.5/5

Looper Throws Audience for a Loop

 Joseph Gordon Levitt (JGL) is everywhere you look in movies. In 2012 alone, he starred in Dark Knight Rises, Looper, Premium Rush and the just released Lincoln. He is a talented actor that showcases many different personas and characters. So when Looper came to TIFF, I really wanted to see it. Even though the director is relatively new, I trusted JGL. He is one of the few actors I trust to pick interesting scripts.  

Bruce Willis (BW) is also an actor who on occasion picks interesting scripts. Willis is known for his action but he also is very talented at showing love and vulnerability. His character can be seen as the villain yet he cannot be hated. Willis is genius in his portrayal. The audience is forced to empathize with his pain yet are torn about how they feel about his actions. 

 I was fascinated by duality of the character. Joe is both protagonist and antagonist, hero and villain. The movie showed how choices can define a person. One scene in particular stands out in mind - at the diner where both Joes converse. JGL Joe could not recognize BW Joe. He didn't seem to understand how he became the man in front of him and he doesn't want that future. It's an important scene that gives much insight to both versions of Joe. 

That scene also seems to show the infamous struggle between fate and free will. While the choices are shown to clearly define the character, when looking at the larger picture, there is a sense that there was someone behind the scenes pulling the strings. The fact that JGL Joe manages to gain the part of the map which contains the true rainmaker is more then just luck as his existence in the kid's life so early defines the boy for either evil (as BW Joe will believe) or good (as his mom believes). He is a pivotal existence for the boy in more ways then he can imagine. 

Despite the fact that there is time-travel, the movie's focus is not on the sci-fi portion. Instead, the director chooses to focus on the characters, which is why the actors' portrayals were so important. It can make or break the film. Luckily, the actors rise to the occasion. Looper is a brilliant hybrid of action and adventure, science fiction,romance and brilliant story overall. It appeals to the heart while it gets adrenaline pumping. There's also a moral hidden within the film that you just have to look for. Either way, it is a good movie to enjoy. 

Rating: 4/5

TIFF 2012 Reviews

In 2011 and 2012, I chose to volunteer at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), which was one of the best decisions I've ever made. For movie lovers, it is the place to be!

As a result, I had the opportunity to watch many films before they reach the big screen. Click on the title to see TIFF's summary of the film and other details.

To The Wonder

Director: Terrence Malick
Stars: Rachel McAdams, Ben Affleck, Javier Bardem and Olga Kurylenko

If you click on the title of the movie, it will take you to the TIFF page dedicated to this film. The summary of this film IS A LIE!

What seems like a movie focused around Ben Affleck's character, actually revolved around Olga's character (she was the Bond girl in Quantum of Solace). Rachel's character only appeared for like twenty minutes of the film and I have no idea what the point of Javier's character was! Was he part of the Ben and Olga plotline or a completely seperate plotline? Only a certain group of movie goers will like this film as the vast majority will most likely dislike it greatly. I was in the vast majority as I found this film to be a waste of time.

This film has beautiful cinematography (the scenes are shot beautifully) and at the beginning, I enjoyed how Terrence seemed to find ways of making the ordinary seem beautiful (i.e., water and wheat fields). But after over an hour of 'artistic' filming, my head started to hurt and irritation grew. The problem with filming an entire movie like that, is that it loses its impact. The impact of the different filming style was much more heighten in the beginning.

Another problem I had was the complete lack of dialogue. There was only a handful of actual spoken lines. There was lots of lines being dictated over the action while the movie is playing. The story was being mainly told through body language, which is actually pretty interesting because I did understand a great deal of the plot. I do agree that body language and silence are powerful tools but not if they are overdone, which is exactly what happened in this film.

I heard a few people commenting on how they enjoyed the openness of the ending. Honestly, that annoyed me considered the whole movie was wide open for interpretation because there was barely any structure there to begin with. There is 4 main characters and maybe a handful of supporting characters

A fellow viewer summed it up best when he called it a "visual poem". Well, I was never a big fan of poetry.

But if you are - go for it!

Much Ado About Nothing

Director: Joss Whedon
Stars: Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg and etc.

A picture speaks a thousand words and this one gives a way a lot. This film, based on the Shakespeare classic, is in a modern setting yet keeps the language almost the same (only a couple of words are changed). Whedon's twist on Shakespeare is genius. There is still romance, drama, angst, tragedy but there is plenty of humor. There were many times when in the theatre, the whole audience came alive with laughter. This film was shot in 12 days, in between finishing up Avengers. Apparently, he just emailed some of his actor friends and shot the film in his house.

I personally really enjoyed it. I love Shakespeare regardless but I love how Whedon made it accessible to everyone. The dialogue was similar to Shakespeare, and maybe it was because it was spoken by trained actors, it was easy to follow along to. I especially enjoyed the humor. It was a great film that many loved. The audience always seemed to cheer when Nathan would appear on the screen (probably due to a mixture of Canadian pride and love for his acting work). There was a sense of friendship among the cast and crew that was there on and off the screen.

I would recommend it if for a possible date movie as it has both romance and humor to appease both genders. Definitely a sleeper hit.

Cloud Atlas

Director: Tom Tykwer, Lana and Andy Wachowski
Stars: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry , Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving , Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, James D'Arcy, Zhou Xun, Keith David, David Gyasi, with Susan Sarandon , and Hugh Grant

Apparently, this film received a ten-minute standing ovations from the TIFF audience at its first showing. That is telling within itself. The buzz was HOT for Cloud Atlas. This is a film people either seemed to hate or love. So I would recommend you see it yourself to judge because what your friend hates, you might like. Either way, it brought out powerful emotions in its viewers. There were six stories being told simultaneously that were subtly interconnected if the viewer paid attention.

I loved Cloud Atlas. This plotline of each story had a moral within them and characters were developed nicely. Plus, the cinematography of the film was beautiful! The CGIs and setting was designed as if to take the viewers into another world. The actors did an amazing job morphing into different characters. The make-up and costume department deserves an award because it was hard to recognize the actors most of the time. It's a beautiful film about the consequences of our actions. I was moved by the abundance of hope this film provided for me.

The only negative was that I had to pay a great deal of attention to the characters because there was elements of reincarnation as well as each actor would play a different role in another story. So, it can be complicated and if you go to the movies to zone out, perhaps this isn't the movie for you. But if you enjoy seeing the connections like a puzzle, this movie is wonderful!

Call Girl

Director: Mikael Marcimain
Stars: Pernilla August, Sofia Karemyr, Simon J Berger, Sven Nordin, David Dencik and etc.

Have you ever watched a movie and knew what was going to happen or what the character would say? If you have, you have watched a lot of Hollywood movies. This happens to me all the time because sometimes, Hollywood movies can be predictable. They have similar formulas that are applied to them. Don't get me wrong! I still love watching the movies but I am genuinely moved a director can come along with their movie and fool me. That or do such an epic job that I love it regardless. That's why I'm one of the few in my personal circle to judge movies by their directors. Just because Jennifer Aniston is in the film, doesn't mean it will be awesome (no offense). Now, there are some actors that know how to pick films (Matt Damon, I'm looking at you!) that are either stories worth telling or blockbusters.

Wow - that turned into a mini rant. Where was I going with this? Oh yes....

The good thing about watching foreign films is that they follow a different formula. I completely did not see how Call Girl was going to end. It blew my mind. I remembered being so shocked that my eyes budged and my jaw dropped (picture any beloved cartoon here). It didn't follow the Hollywood formula but it resonated true in my heart. I will always love it for that alone.


It was an interesting film. There was a great deal of nudity and sexual content (as expected though, when the film is based on a real-life prostitution scandal that involved some of the Swedish politicians). It drags on for a while during the middle. I remember checking my watch and yawning but the end was worth it. It made me want to watch more foreign films (alas the festival was over though).

If you have an open mind or you know the hollywood formula, then I recommend this film for you.