negative reviews were as severe as the positive. Regarding the positive reviews, film critic Odile Tremblay concluded in Le Devoir, "A work that is radical in its style, disconcerting by its climate, courageous, open to multiple interpretations, sometimes irritating, mostly fascinating, susceptible to confounding general audiences, often too unmethodical, but worth the detour. [...] We salute a true audacity in this uneven film that gropes around in the dark but eventually reveals its brilliance in flashes, all the while refusing all compromise." Martin Gignac of Ici wrote, "To discover a mysterious and haunting pearl as this is so very rare. The glaucous music and the audacious camerawork accentuate the subtle performance by the all too unfamiliar Vlasta Vrana." In the Montreal Gazette, John Griffin wrote, "A fascinating, challenging psychodrama [...] impressively orchestrated." In Le Soleil, Gilles Carignan wrote, "[...] the formal aspects, stunningly mastered, evoke Guy Maddin. Paquette perfectly blends amorous sentiment with terrifying suspense. A welcome surprise." In La Presse, film critic Anabelle Nicoud concluded, "A debut film that is tragic, psychological, personal, and intelligent. A must see." In Voir, Kevin Laforest wrote, "Aside from the technical brilliance, what gives the film all its power is the engaging performance by Vlasta Vrana." Malcolm Fraser of the Montreal Mirror wrote, "The film has a peculiar style, one that's hard to classify [...] There are echoes of Eraserhead and Barton Fink [...] ultimately, though, Paquette seems to be striving towards his own vision. [...] an atmospheric and intriguing little curiosity." Stephen Pedersen of The Chronicle Herald declared, "As a story it smudges the conventions of narrative. As a film it questions the conventions of film-making. [...] It's a striking achievement. [...] While what it means and how it was achieved are likely to arouse the biggest differences of opinion, on one thing, all are likely to agree: Vlasta Vrana's extraordinary performance. It is a tour-de-force [...]." The sole critic in Toronto with any praise was Adam Nayman of Eye Weekly, who opined, "B.P. Paquette is an estimable mood-setter [...] there's a pervasive sense of dread in the micro-budget, super-16mm indie A Year in the Death of Jack Richards that puts most burnished Hollywood horror-shows to shame." Regarding the negative reviews, film critic Liz Braun's headline in the Toronto Sun summarized the opinion of most Toronto critics, "Jack Richards is Amateurish at Best." Hannah Guy of Now wrote, "Benjamin Paquette's debut feature [...] is an awkward fledgling of a movie with mediocre production values," but concluded that, "veteran thesp Vrana delivers an authentic performance." Especially dismissive were Chris Knight at the National Post, and Liam Lacey at The Globe and Mail. The former declared, "Film critics see movies [...] with pages of press notes. [...] But the press notes can, however, make all the difference. A Year in the Death of Jack Richards [...] is a labyrinth of a film and I would have been lost without the notes. As it was, I was merely disoriented. [...] The press notes refer to the film's ability to 'trouble and perplex,' which I got right away; its 'warmth and deep understanding,' which I missed and its 'electrifying' nature, which I presume is a reference to the joybuzzer shock cuts, always accompanied by the same '70s-era photo of a greasyhaired guy with a thick moustache [...] The press notes say this 'challenging film experience [...] is sure to be most appreciated by those viewers who are engaged by film as film." If that sounds like you, enjoy some popcorn as popcorn and settle back, prepared to be shocked out of your seat as a seat."