Worst casting of the year?
Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs
But I'll let you guys decide. What other 2013 movie made a bad casting decision of a main character?
Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs
But I'll let you guys decide. What other 2013 movie made a bad casting decision of a main character?
Unless the very worst parts of the movie were picked for the trailers ak is laughably bad in Jobs. I cannot see a clip without laughing. His delivery is moronic and he looks goofy and uncomfortable.
It's a bad sign when all the "positive" reviews are on and off the screen at hyper speed even though none of them are from a reputable source.
does it matter? he's been a jerk all through his life.
shareUmmm... except of course Noah Wyle!
shareeven if they casted Leonardo, I wouldn't dare giving my money or watching the life of a certified jerk.
shareHe looks nothing like the man. They should of cast someone else for the younger parts and Stanley Tucci for when he's older.
shareI agree. He looks absolutely nothing like Steve Jobs and it is almost offensive that they thought he looked anything like Steve.
shareWho else would you pick if not Kutcher? In the scene where he is in his garden with slightly longer hair , I thought they bought Steve jobs back to life.
Kutcher also holds majority stakes in many apps like pulse etc.
Having said that, yes it is very easy and simple to kill him for the effort but he was an outstanding Jobs.
People who have read the book should understand this film is not trying to be the book. It would be one heck of a fruitless endeavor.
Kutcher was an obvious choice due to his current high profile and bearing some resemblance to the subject. Judging by the "movie of the week" quality of the movie, I would go on to call him the perfect choice, matching the qualities of the star most accurately to the product (something like "That 80's Movie").
I have never understood how this cardboard cut-out of an actor has managed to build such a big career.
I wonder who should be cast for a better script?
Actually I would like to see the bio-flick genre die forever, especially with living subjects still active in their field. Most not only change the real facts, not merely omit some for time, many manage to actually invert the facts, that is, lie outright for screenplay expediency, as with Churchill's position on the abdication of Edward VIII portrayed in The King's Speech. Cinematic bio-flicks (as opposed to a well made documentary) are for the most part the Liberty Valance version of history, film the legend.
CB
Good Times, Noodle Salad
most biopics nowadays aren't of real value to be honest but rather an easy attempt to make money of the existing trend or popularity. Suckerberg, Jabs, Beaver, etc... it's not like they would be of historical value in a few years.
shareThe biopics of yesteryear were no better and tended to sugarcoat any unpleasant details of their subject's life. However, few of them were about prominent living people still active in their field.
CB
Good Times, Noodle Salad
Actually I would like to see the bio-flick genre die forever, especially with living subjects still active in their field. Most not only change the real facts, not merely omit some for time, many manage to actually invert the facts, that is, lie outright for screenplay expediency, as with Churchill's position on the abdication of Edward VIII portrayed in The King's Speech. Cinematic bio-flicks (as opposed to a well made documentary) are for the most part the Liberty Valance version of history, film the legend.
Ashton's performance was boring as hell. Was it right to laugh during his tearful, sad moments?
I was like, give me a break. I've never been in a theater so quiet the ENTIRE two hours.
Maybe Ashton got Jobs walk right. That's about it.
"George is dead. Call me back."
RING. Hello?
"Hi. It's George."