I just started 8 weeks ago and I've gotten 3 check for a total of $8500...this is the best decision I made in a long time!. I use this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways,information leaked on this site... http://www.day37.com
I just started 8 weeks ago and I've gotten 3 check for a total of $8500...this is the best decision I made in a long time!. I use this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways,information leaked on this site... WWW.?AY37.?O?
I thought that was, indeed, a wonderful part of the movie. But I also thought those scenes were a tad long (the whole movie itself could have been edited down a bit).
Agree. It came off a bit contrived, as if they were showing off this actor as much as possible. I still thoroughly enjoyed him.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Did anyone who saw it think Ashton nailed it? He did dissolve into the role and become Steve, or did it always feel like you were watching a performance by Ashton Kutcher?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Just speaking for myself, I thought that Ashton (whom I really don't like at all; in fact, I can't stand 3.5 Men) nailed the role.
I found myself thinking Kutcher nailed it in some scenes, and overplayed it in others. But the overplayed scenes might be due to the choppy editing. Yes, I recognized Kelso here and there, but that's unavoidable. Overall, it was a credible performance. Frankly, the resemblance between Kutcher and young jobs is quite strong.
It's a bit weird that the worms haven't even finish eating him, yet he's already being portrayed as an historical hero. Would have been better to wait a few more years at least.
The moment these morons cast Kutcher, one of the least talented actors in history, they were doomed. It was an insult to Steve Job's legacy that they cast a clown instead of an actor. The director should be run out of town.
Once upon a time (at least in the 80s), a movie had to earn $3 for every $1 of production to break even. Since the cost of movies has gone up, and if that holds true, it's gotta earn quite a bit more!
Once upon a time (at least in the 80s), a movie had to earn $3 for every $1 of production to break even. Since the cost of movies has gone up, and if that holds true, it's gotta earn quite a bit more!
So you're suggesting that a movie like Lone Ranger should have grossed more than ~$650M to break even?! Highly unlikely.
But please shut up about it if all you've done is read the reviews.
Allow me to turn your statement on its ear...
I don't have a lot of time to catch flicks, so I depend on either word of mouth, or certain critics whose values I trust. Currently that falls to James Berardinelli.
So, for those of you that have seen this already, and have the patience to read his review (search for Reelviews)... how close is how he felt about it to your own experience?
Thanks, and no, I'm not shilling for his site, or trying to derail the thread.
I don't even look at the critic's comments or ratings on Flixster. I rarely agree with them.
Critics are fine. The trick is to do the research and find a critic with your similar likes and dislikes in movies. Once you find one, it saves you a bunch of time on crap you would have watched and hated, and opens your eyes to movies you wouldn't have given the opportunity but loved.
My critic I follow is Martin Leiberman. That guy is dead on with my tastes 99.9% of the time. You just have to find the right guy/gal for you.
Comments
This is a made-for-TV movie. So why are you disappointed it isn't a box office smash????
When did a little more than half (6.7 million) become most?
thats great
?y ?ro??er'? ?r?e?d ?ry?? ??owed ?e ?ow ? c?? ???e ?o?e c??? w??le wor???? ?ro? ?y ?o?e o? ?y co?p??er... ?ow ? e?r? 85 bucks every ?o?r ??d ? co?ld?'? ?e ??pp?er... ?e?ore ???? jo? ? ??d ?ro??le ???d??? jo? ?or ?o???? ??? ?ow w?e? ? ?o? ???? ??? ? wo?ld?'? ?r?de ?? ?or ?o?????... <a href="http://ViewMore------------------------------------------.qr.net/kKlG" rel="nofollow">ViewMore----------------------...</a>
?y ?ro??er'? ?r?e?d ?ry?? ??owed ?e ?ow ? c?? ???e ?o?e c??? w??le wor???? ?ro? ?y ?o?e o? ?y co?p??er... ?ow ? e?r? 85 bucks every ?o?r ??d ? co?ld?'? ?e ??pp?er... ?e?ore ???? jo? ? ??d ?ro??le ???d??? jo? ?or ?o???? ??? ?ow w?e? ? ?o? ???? ??? ? wo?ld?'? ?r?de ?? ?or ?o?????... http://xurl.es/qa0uk
?y ?ro??er'? ?r?e?d ?ry?? ??owed ?e ?ow ? c?? ???e ?o?e c??? w??le wor???? ?ro? ?y ?o?e o? ?y co?p??er... ?ow ? e?r? 85 bucks every ?o?r ??d ? co?ld?'? ?e ??pp?er... ?e?ore ???? jo? ? ??d ?ro??le ???d??? jo? ?or ?o???? ??? ?ow w?e? ? ?o? ???? ??? ? wo?ld?'? ?r?de ?? ?or ?o?????... http://goo.gl/QrkpyK
?y ?ro??er'? ?r?e?d ?ry?? ??owed ?e ?ow ? c?? ???e ?o?e c??? w??le wor???? ?ro? ?y ?o?e o? ?y co?p??er... ?ow ? e?r? 85 bucks every ?o?r ??d ? co?ld?'? ?e ??pp?er... ?e?ore ???? jo? ? ??d ?ro??le ???d??? jo? ?or ?o???? ??? ?ow w?e? ? ?o? ???? ??? ? wo?ld?'? ?r?de ?? ?or ?o?????... .?AY37.?O?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I thought that was, indeed, a wonderful part of the movie. But I also thought those scenes were a tad long (the whole movie itself could have been edited down a bit).
Agree. It came off a bit contrived, as if they were showing off this actor as much as possible. I still thoroughly enjoyed him.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Did anyone who saw it think Ashton nailed it? He did dissolve into the role and become Steve, or did it always feel like you were watching a performance by Ashton Kutcher?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Just speaking for myself, I thought that Ashton (whom I really don't like at all; in fact, I can't stand 3.5 Men) nailed the role.
I found myself thinking Kutcher nailed it in some scenes, and overplayed it in others. But the overplayed scenes might be due to the choppy editing. Yes, I recognized Kelso here and there, but that's unavoidable. Overall, it was a credible performance. Frankly, the resemblance between Kutcher and young jobs is quite strong.
It's a bit weird that the worms haven't even finish eating him, yet he's already being portrayed as an historical hero. Would have been better to wait a few more years at least.
The moment these morons cast Kutcher, one of the least talented actors in history, they were doomed. It was an insult to Steve Job's legacy that they cast a clown instead of an actor. The director should be run out of town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez
Once upon a time (at least in the 80s), a movie had to earn $3 for every $1 of production to break even. Since the cost of movies has gone up, and if that holds true, it's gotta earn quite a bit more!
So you're suggesting that a movie like Lone Ranger should have grossed more than ~$650M to break even?! Highly unlikely.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Released last Friday to mostly negative reviews, "Jobs" starring Ashton Kutcher earned less than its studio hoped it would over the weekend.
What's that? A biographic movie that ignores the actual events of the person's life did poorly? You don't effing say.
Originally Posted by rednival
I am sorry but I think they overestimated how many people want to see a Steve Jobs movie.
Not one as inaccurate as this, at least.
There isn't mystery or legend or controversy around the man…
There is if they saw this film.
People feel they already know his story.
They won't if they saw this film.
Keep 'em coming; I can do this all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
But please shut up about it if all you've done is read the reviews.
Allow me to turn your statement on its ear...
I don't have a lot of time to catch flicks, so I depend on either word of mouth, or certain critics whose values I trust. Currently that falls to James Berardinelli.
So, for those of you that have seen this already, and have the patience to read his review (search for Reelviews)... how close is how he felt about it to your own experience?
Thanks, and no, I'm not shilling for his site, or trying to derail the thread.
Critics are fine. The trick is to do the research and find a critic with your similar likes and dislikes in movies. Once you find one, it saves you a bunch of time on crap you would have watched and hated, and opens your eyes to movies you wouldn't have given the opportunity but loved.
My critic I follow is Martin Leiberman. That guy is dead on with my tastes 99.9% of the time. You just have to find the right guy/gal for you.