Steve Jobs biopic 'Jobs' now available to purchase and rent on iTunes

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Ashton Kutcher vehicle "Jobs" has landed in virtual and brick-and-mortar stores across the U.S., including options to buy or rent the movie on Apple's iTunes.

acidjobskutch


After debuting as the Sundance Festival's closing night selection and seeing wide release in August, Steve Jobs biopic "Jobs" is now available to purchase on the web and in stores.

While the film received lackluster reviews and made a poor showing on its opening weekend, "Jobs" is the first feature-length title to take on the life of Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. Ashton Kutcher plays the title role and is backed up by Josh Gad as Steve Wozniak, Dermot Mulroney, Lukas Haas, J.K. Simmons, Matthew Modine and James Woods.

The movie spans a large chunk of Jobs' life, running from the founding of Apple to the introduction of the iPod.

A big-budget Jobs film is currently in the works and is being penned by Oscar-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. That film is said to play in three major "scenes" comprised entirely of backstage moments just before the unveiling of the original Mac, NeXT computer, and the iPod.

An HD version of "Jobs" can be downloaded from iTunes for $19.99, while standard definition comes in at $14.99. Rentals are also available in HD and SD for $4.99 and $3.99, respectively.

Aside from iTunes, "Jobs" is for sale on Amazon in both digital and DVD formats.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    Fuckyeahcrapmovies
  • Reply 2 of 29

    /crickets

  • Reply 3 of 29
    zozmanzozman Posts: 391member

    The movie almost killed me, its so bad.

  • Reply 4 of 29
    So sad that the movie of an iconic is not on that level
  • Reply 5 of 29
    I'd rather read the Isaacson biography.
  • Reply 6 of 29

    No thanks. Ashton probably killed his career with this.

  • Reply 7 of 29
    We have all these critics on JOBS who no doubt know how to make a movie. Like movie critic Roger Ebert, when he went to make his own movie, and it flopped abysmally, he had a better appreciation for what goes into film-making.

    I saw the movie, enjoyed it, so did my girlfriend. We wanted entertainment, not the discovery of America. Kutcher did a pretty good job.

    The one thing I have learned in my life about "whiners," they aren't much good at doing ANYTHING except, you guessed it: Whining. You guys are as bad as those who come to this website to whine about spelling, grammar and any other thing most of us don't have the time for.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post

    We wanted entertainment…

     

    Speak for yourself only. I wanted truth.

  • Reply 9 of 29
    "We" was in reference to myself and girlfriend.

    The notion that occasionally you make sense Tallest is overshadowed by you "I'm always right ego." I don't need you to explain Truth to me, or anyone else. Even saying that makes you subjective.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    bobbyfozz wrote: »
    ...about spelling, grammar and any other thing most of us don't have the time for.

    You accidentally just proved a point and it wasn't a good one.
  • Reply 11 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    And, yes, the others were right.

    This movie is Goddamn AWFUL.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    I'd rather read the Isaacson biography.
    There's VASTLY better sources than Isaacson's tome.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post



    We have all these critics on JOBS who no doubt know how to make a movie. Like movie critic Roger Ebert, when he went to make his own movie, and it flopped abysmally, he had a better appreciation for what goes into film-making.



    I saw the movie, enjoyed it, so did my girlfriend. We wanted entertainment, not the discovery of America. Kutcher did a pretty good job.



    The one thing I have learned in my life about "whiners," they aren't much good at doing ANYTHING except, you guessed it: Whining. You guys are as bad as those who come to this website to whine about spelling, grammar and any other thing most of us don't have the time for.

     

    Wait, let me get this straight.

    So you saw the movie and that means your opinion is the only valid one and everyone else who hasn't seen the movie is a "whiner"? Right?

    But doesn't Roger Ebert also see the movies he reviews? Doesn't that make his opinion as valid as yours? But that's not what you're saying: you just slammed Roger Ebert for making a movie that "flopped abysmally", so for Roger Ebert to have a valid opinion, he has to be a commercially successful filmmaker himself. Aren't you going to apply that standard to yourself?

     

    You know what makes Roger Ebert's opinion valid? It isn't that he saw the movie he reviewed. It's that he has seen thousands upon thousands of movies both contemporary and classic. He is familiar with the art form. In the same way that a art critic doesn't have to be a painter or sculptor, but familiar with many works of art and their attributes. May I ask who you are to dismiss Roger Ebert so blithely while asserting your opinion over others?

  • Reply 14 of 29
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,097member
    Wait two months & then pick it up from the bargain bins for £2.99
  • Reply 15 of 29

    Funny that most of you who think it sucked never even saw it.  Kutcher played the part well, and looked very much like Jobs.  It is a movie with dramatic enhancements, and it provided dramatic entertainment.  It is Hollywood, what do you expect?  I am sure the next "big-budget" one will just as "dramatic" and all of you will also claim it sucks too without seeing it.  So sit and home, drink your kool-aid, and watch Glitter, Gigli, or Ishtar.

     

    Bobbyfozz does make a valid point, don't claim a movie sucks if you have never seen it.

  • Reply 16 of 29
    irelandireland Posts: 17,493member

    Sooo bad.

  • Reply 17 of 29
    irelandireland Posts: 17,493member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post



    We have all these critics on JOBS who no doubt know how to make a movie. Like movie critic Roger Ebert, when he went to make his own movie, and it flopped abysmally, he had a better appreciation for what goes into film-making.

     

    What a lame comment. You don't need to be able to play the violin to see someone else can't play. 'You play a song on the violin, then.' is not a good retort. But a good response to it could be, 'no, because I also cannot play the violin'.

     

    What was good about this movie: makeup.

     

    What was bad about this movie: everything else. Kutcher's over zealous overacting, 'the Jobs' walk' was in too many meaningless shots with too much emphasis put on it as if it was its own character in the movie, the fact that he sounded nothing like Jobs; not one bit, the fact that they chose someone to play the part of Steve who had the charisma of a goat, the fact that there are no good scenes; not one, the casting in general was so bad the movie looks more like a sketch, rather than a movie it seems more like a collection of unfocused rubbish scenes, the script is rubbish.

     

    Jobs' father: "keep it neat Steve". The casual viewer is meant to understand what that means? No mention of Pixar? No mention of his struggles; it jumps right to the scene when he's called back to Apple: Next isn't even a footnote, it's not explained properly, let alone dramatised to even a degree that makes it seem real. It's easily the worst movie I've seen in 5 years. It's possibly the worst I've seen in 10.

  • Reply 18 of 29
    irelandireland Posts: 17,493member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Speak for yourself only. I wanted truth.


     

    I think a good biopic does both. Jobs' journey left a great opportunity for both. The Buddy Holly Story has both. La Bamba has both. Gorillas in the Mist has both. A Beautiful Mind. The Pianist. Erin Brockovich. There are many extremely good biopics out there. Jobs isn't just a bad biopic, and it's a really bad biopic. It's a bad movie.

  • Reply 19 of 29
    irelandireland Posts: 17,493member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post



    Like movie critic Roger Ebert, when he went to make his own movie, and it flopped abysmally, he had a better appreciation for what goes into film-making.



    The one thing I have learned in my life about "whiners," they aren't much good at doing ANYTHING except, you guessed it: Whining.

     

    That's not true at all. Ebert isn't always right, everyone knows that, but he is a prolific critic. Read his Field of Dreams review. Read his Shawshank review. He can also write good reviews.

  • Reply 20 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    I'd rather read the Isaacson biography.

     

    Considering Isaacson had access to Jobs himself I believe that he missed a great opportunity to create something really special. There was little in his book that cannot be gleamed from other sources.

     

    However, I’m currently reading ’The Bite in the Apple’ by Chrisann Brennan. Initially, I thought it might be a bit of a shake-down by her to make some cash (which she openly admits she lacks) but, of all the books about Apple and Steve that I have read, this may just be the most interesting one yet. We get to see the true, human side of Jobs, and he’s nothing like the versions of him that we read about in other books. 

     

    I’m only about a quarter of the way through it right now but I highly recommend this book to others wishing to learn more about the man Steve Jobs.

Sign In or Register to comment.