Kurt Loder Movie Reviews

Big Eyes

Tim Burton takes on the king of kitsch.

|

Big Eyes
Big Eyes / Youtube

In the 1960s, Walter Keane was one of the world's most famous—and possibly most derided—painters. His pictures of sad little children with big saucer-size eyes might have exemplified "heroic bad taste," as one New York museum curator put it, but museums in Spain and Belgium hung them proudly, and stars like Joan Crawford, Kim Novak and Natalie Wood collected them. The paintings themselves were far outnumbered by the posters and postcards that Keane turned them into, and it was these gift-shop simulacra that made him rich. 

But Keane's self-trumpeting success ("My brush is continually discovering new things," he said) was his undoing. In 1970, his fed-up ex-wife Margaret announced that it was actually she who had painted all those big-eyed waifs, not Walter. "He was the one who promoted the paintings and sold them," she told a UPI reporter. "I can paint, and he can't." After years of dispute, Margaret filed suit to claim authorship of the Keane paintings, and after a hilarious courtroom showdown, she finally prevailed. Today, in her eighties, she's still painting, and her late husband's Wikipedia page accords him a different kind of fame from that which he'd once enjoyed: It describes him simply as "American plagiarist."

This is a great story, and Tim Burton has now turned it into a breezy and rather slight movie, with Amy Adams playing Margaret Keane and Christoph Waltz in the role of Walter. It's an unusual Burton film. Apart from a supermarket scene in which Margaret imagines outsized Keane-style eyes on the faces of other shoppers, there are no pop-grotesque fantasy effects of the sort common in the director's bigger-budget pictures. (This one cost $10-million.) Instead, Burton focuses on the plight of a female artist struggling for recognition in the old, pre-feminist America. He also addresses a question previously raised in his 1994 Ed Wood: What is art? And who gets to decide?

The movie begins in the 1950s, with Margaret fleeing a broken marriage with her small daughter Jane in tow. They settle amid the bohemian ferment of San Francisco's North Beach. There, at an outdoor art show, Margaret meets Walter, a prosperous realtor who admits he's only a "Sunday painter." Walter's own pictures—trite street scenes of Paris, where he claims to have studied, or something—are ignored by passersby; but Margaret's big-eye sketches of little Jane draw some interest. Walter senses potential. He and Margaret soon marry, and after being rebuffed by one snooty gallery owner (Jason Schwartzman), Walter begins showing his wife's work on the walls of a famous boho nightclub, the hungry i.

Walter may not be much of a painter himself, but he knows how to sell. Soon Margaret's paintings are commanding thousands of dollars from well-heeled collectors. When she discovers that Walter is taking credit for them, she confronts him. "Why are you lying?" she asks. "I just want to share them with the world," he says. Acknowledging her as the real artist, he tells her, "would be confusing."  

High-toned tastemakers wonder why anyone would want to take credit for the Keane paintings. One of these eminences, New York Times art critic John Canaday (an icy Terence Stamp), dismisses the Keane paintings as "an infinity of kitsch." "Mr. Keane is why society needs critics," Canaday harrumphs. "To protect them from such atrocities."

Over the course of 10 years, as the submissive Margaret churns out big-eye paintings in a cramped home studio, Walter becomes an increasingly abusive drunk. After she leaves him and relocates to Hawaii, Burton and his cinematographer, Bruno Delbonnel (Inside Llewyn Davis), use the island's dappling sun and flowery attire to create a kitsch vision of their own—an affectionate tribute to this long-ago pre-hippie period.

The movie is dimmed a bit by its muddled tone, an uncertain mix of drama and comedy with, at one point, an intrusion of dark, Hitchcockian menace. (The screenplay is by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, who also scripted Ed Wood.) And perhaps understandably, the characters never quite come into focus. Is Walter a charming rogue or a scummy exploiter? (Waltz overplays both aspects at various times.) And why is Margaret such a doormat? (Adams, at her most winning here, does her best to give this woman emotional dimension, but can't really break through till the second half of the picture.)

As he did with the films of the assertively untalented Ed Wood, Burton takes no position on Margaret's big-eye paintings. Are they not by now a species of folk art, to be savored as guileless artifacts of the benighted past? Are they really worth reviling anymore? In one Times review, the real-life John Canaday dismissed them as "the very definition of tasteless hack work." But here we have Walter asking, "What's wrong with being the lowest common denominator?" A question for the ages.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: First in Flight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Probably won’t see the movie, but … the Wikipedia article says only that when she took hubby to trial for laying about who was the painter, he ordered both of them to set up easels in the courtroom and paint — hubby refused, claiming a hurt shoulder, and she finished in 53 minutes.

    It’s such an obvious solution — makes one wonder why hubby thought he could get away with it. Even if there had been no trial, with wifey gone, how did he expect to keep on selling new pictures, and how did he think he could keep wifey from painter her own new ones? Whereas if he’d kept quiet and left things alone, he could have continued milking royalties for years.

    I guess some people are just dumb.

    1. s/he ordered/the judge ordered/

    2. You’d basically have to admit, publicly, that you were part of a fraud. And the other thing is that, until the 1970s, outshining your husband was still considered bad form in polite society.

      As my mom described it, if a smart woman wanted to be a respectable member of society, there were three options to choose from. You could be a teacher, a secretary, or a nurse, and choosing one of those was supposed to help ensure you would be married by a respectable man.

      Making a foundational contribution to what came to be pop surrealism wasn’t one of the acceptable choices, and stabbing your husband in the back and exposing yourself as part of a public fraud wasn’t considered an epic, Oprah confessional act of courage either.

      We think of ourselves as being light years ahead of, say, the Saudis and the Taliban in terms of what women can and can’t do, but it wasn’t that long ago that our thinking went along the same lines theirs does. We didn’t use the government and Islam to keep women in their place, but the basic idea just 40 years ago in the U.S. was that women belonged at home with the children, they should only be driving if there isn’t a man around to drive them, and going against your husband was extremely bad form–if not an indication of mental instability.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4e-HdlhPY

      American society has changed dramatically since then.

      1. ahhh, if we could only return to the good ol’ days

      2. I suppose you’re right. I grew up back then, and ought to remember the bad ole days. But it still seems an incredible blunder on his part to not leave well enough alone. His trial behavior shows he wasn’t thinking particularly well even then, and batshit crazy is always batshit crazy.

        1. “It still seems an incredible blunder on his part to not leave well enough alone.”

          No doubt. He overplayed his hand.

          But the game was changing underneath his feet.

          Incidentally, I’m not sure we’re all the way there, yet, either.

          I know the Brontes and “George Eliot” published under male names because they didn’t think their work would be accepted if people knew they were women, but I understand the reason J. K. Rowling is “J. K.” (rather than Joanne) is because publishers didn’t want the public to know, at first, that the author was a woman.

          Margaret Keane, especially, had reason to be concerned about her sex from a marketing perspective–considering that her paintings were considered lightweight already. It was probably much easier to sell those big eyed little girls as an ironic take coming from a grown man.

          Also, incidentally, I think pop surrealism–which she was before anybody called it that–still has trouble being taken seriously. However, Mark Ryden sold some expensive paintings, and if he’s being taken seriously in the art world, it may be because of the groundwork Margaret Keane laid. Looking at some of his big-eyed, little girl paintings, maybe he should send her a check.

          Take a look:

          http://tinyurl.com/nx3kj6v

      3. American men were pretty much dicks to women half a century ago, but you’re far underestimating the horrendous things done to women in Islamic countries. Being called mentally unstable and being stabbed in a honor-killing, if not ‘lightyears’ away, are still pretty damn far away, and the latter is not the logical conclusion of the prior.

        1. I didn’t say being called mentally unstable and being stabbed in an honor killing were equivalent.

          I said our thinking in terms of what women can and can’t do ran along the same lines (back then) as theirs does now. They think that women’s proper role in society is mostly confined to being a homemaker and a mother.

          The means they use to enforce that are different–they use the government and religion. For us, it was more of a social stigma–and there certainly was one associated with upstaging your husband.

          I made those differences clear.

          “We didn’t use the government and Islam to keep women in their place, but the basic idea just 40 years ago in the U.S. was that…”

        2. Yeah and americans are dicks to fat ppl.

          Reasonoids needs to get the fuck off the SJW bandwagon.

          Until you are willing to open your eyes to all forms of subtle discrimination, you can’t make a mountain out of a molehill. She could paint but she never could have gotten her paintings sold. He did that. Not to say his lies are acceptable, just that the ‘men bilking wife’s discovery’ meme is utter bullshit.

          1. Nature takes a chance on men. They end up colossal wastes and colossal successes. If wombs weren’t so reproductively important, maybe nature and evolution would have let the female genome experiment too.

            Certain factors keep the gender’s mean IQ roughly the same, but that is not to say their intelligence is equivalent. I suspect you will see a lot more male dominance, culturally, when the halls of higher management start affirmative actioning more men out of those crucial positions. Upper management is the talent drain of male discovery. Bitches complain about a glass ceiling but they have no clue. It offers more money than social status (how do you think women are going to come down on that trade?-The default evolutionary mindset is that if you want money you get status to snare a rich man).

            The strength of the invisible hand is a product of aggregate choice, weighted by position. Put idiots in board rooms, and the invisible hand starts to suck. If Marie Curie was in a board room she wouldn’t have discovered radium and become so marketable to SJW. And she is nearly a feminist prophet because of her singularity. Ppl like her don’t come along often, but male discovery is widespread, even with uppermanagement talent drain.

            In a nation management RTS simulation computer game, do you focus on war, economy, or research? War while violence persists, economy while scarcity persists, otherwise research. Male dominance in research is an afterthought of real male contributions.

            1. One of the things I find so preposterous about feminism is the idea that a gender who cannot get pregnant could be so utterly blase (productivity-wise) while not having that challenge/emphasis. As if men and women should have parity while women make the babies.

              So to feminists: Imagine how amazing women would be if they didn’t have little rugrats running around their apron strings sucking up energy, effort, attention. In that world, women would be BETTER than men, yes? Well what you just imagined is the condition in which men already exist. They don’t mother children. To claim gender parity under those conditions is to say men are, by nature, inferior.

              I think evolution would take great exception to that, as attested by the enormous number of disposable males who never produced an offspring.

          2. “She could paint but she never could have gotten her paintings sold.”

            If that’s true, what does that tell us about society at the time?

            If the paintings themselves weren’t the issue (but the sex of the artist was), then what does that tell us about society at the time?

            “Reasonoids needs to get the fuck off the SJW bandwagon.”

            It isn’t really a bandwagon, but libertarians need to do more to make the case that libertarianism is the solution to a lot of these problems–rather than government action.

            I certainly haven’t been so blinded by the left’s government solutions that I’ve started to pretend these things aren’t problems. That would be stupid.

      4. “but it wasn’t that long ago that our thinking went along the same lines theirs does. ”

        That you can type this shows you to be as ignorant of history as a kitten is of astrophysics. You would, in all seriousness, have to go all the way back to the Alexandrian Greeks to find a society as restrictive and dismissive of women as the Taliban. The Saudis are not, quite, that bad. You would meet Saudi levels of restriction on women in some cycles of the Roman Empire. Maybe.

        I’m not saying that our society has not had some fairly restrictive ideas about women as recently as the last century. But I get a triffle fed up with out of proportion comparisons.

        No, George W. Bush is not comparable to a certain Austrian Corporal; he isn’t an advocate to genocide and he doesn’t murder his critics.

        No, America is not as Homophobic as Iran; we are debating the ethics and morality of Gay Marriage, they are debating whether Gays should be burned alive.

        No, nobody in the West has treated women anything close to as badly as the Taliban does. Not in the last thousand years.

        1. “You would, in all seriousness, have to go all the way back to the Alexandrian Greeks to find a society as restrictive and dismissive of women as the Taliban.”

          And you only have to go back a few minutes to find anywhere in my post where I said that U.S. society in the ’70s was as restrictive and dismissive of women as the Taliban.

          If you can’t see the difference between saying that our idea of proper gender roles was similar to theirs–but understanding that the means and extremes we went to in order to enforce those gender roles are different? Then you should spend less time on history and more time on reading comprehension.

          1. Your post is still part of the whole “we’re so awful (and aren’t I morally superior for saying so)” narrative that has grown tiresome beyond bearing. Western society has not been anything like as rstrictive of women as Islamic society for so long that the comparison is absurd. Not only that, but the WAYS in which we are and have been restrictive of women are radically different in style as well as scope. Islam has to deal with the stresses caused by Polygamy, which concentrates the availability of women in the hands of far fewer men. That makes restructing their movements outside the home vital, so,ething we have seldom done in any broad sense. Oh, wealthy families might choose to do so, or try. They had nothing like the force of custom that existed amd exists under Islam.

            You are a sophmore Intellectual trying to come off as a scholar. You fail.

            1. You are a sophmore Intellectual trying to come off as a scholar. You fail.

              One of the best definition for “asshole” I’ve ever read was a moron educated beyond his intelligence. One of the hallmarks of this type of asshole is pointless empty verbosity.

              Ken fits that definition nearly perfectly.

              On top of being nowhere near as intelligent or as lettered as he believes he is, Ken is also the the most pig ignorant of moral relativists I’ve seen outside of the fever swamps of DailyKos or DUh.

            2. “Your post is still part of the whole “we’re so awful (and aren’t I morally superior for saying so)” narrative that has grown tiresome beyond bearing.”

              It’s the subject of the thread.

              There’s nothing intellectual about pretending sexism wasn’t an issue in the ’70s and before, and there isn’t anything anti-intellectual in pointing out that if we’ve made progress in that area since then, it has little or nothing to do with anything the government did.

              Effective social change happens from the bottom up. Same thing happened with civil rights. We didn’t the civil rights movement because of civil rights legislation. We got better protection for civil rights in this country because from started asserting themselves from the bottom up.

              And there is something terribly defeatist about pretending there is no issue in response to progressive policy. They want government programs to combat global warming–so we say there is none? They say they want government programs to combat racism–so we deny there is racism? They say they want government programs to combat sexism–should we deny the existence of that, too?

              There isn’t anything intellectual about strict, across the board, denial of all of our problems, either. I’d much rather bring into question the effectiveness of government programs to combat these problems. Especially when history and the facts are in our favor.

              1. This lady didn’t get recognition for her work because some President insisted on legislation somewhere. Effective solutions come when people stand up for themselves and demand and exercise their rights. And we certainly shouldn’t surrender that part of the battlefield forever just because the social conservatives in the Republican Party have abandoned it so thoroughly that the Democrats can count on their support being completely unchallenged on those issues.

              2. There’s nothing intellectual about pretending sexism wasn’t an issue in the ’70s and before, and there isn’t anything anti-intellectual in pointing out that if we’ve made progress in that area since then, it has little or nothing to do with anything the government did.

                Jesus Ken, you claimed that we shared attributes with Islam in that regard.

                Go damn you are fucking tone deaf and stupid.

                1. Maybe this shit will sink in:

                  We think of ourselves as being light years ahead of, say, the Saudis and the Taliban in terms of what women can and can’t do, but it wasn’t that long ago that our thinking went along the same lines theirs does. We didn’t use the government and Islam to keep women in their place, but the basic idea just 40 years ago in the U.S. was that women belonged at home with the children, they should only be driving if there isn’t a man around to drive them, and going against your husband was extremely bad form–if not an indication of mental instability.

                  And you doubled down again and again posting the same inane idiotic shit:

                  I said our thinking in terms of what women can and can’t do ran along the same lines (back then) as theirs does now. They think that women’s proper role in society is mostly confined to being a homemaker and a mother.

                  You then attacked people who read your posts exactly as they were written. When multiple people come to same conclusion from your posts they aren’t ones failing Ken, you are.

                  1. Here Ken let me make sure you can read and comprehend and maybe learn and grow the fuck up:

                    WHEN MULTIPLE PEOPLE COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION FROM YOUR POSTS THEY AREN’T THE ONES FAILING KEN, YOU ARE.

        2. Ken spent an entire evening a few months ago defending slavery and tribal warfare, so it doesn’t surprise me that he’d post something this stupid.

          As usual he didn’t read the post and think about what it says before posting it and people have called him on it. And in typical Ken fashion instead of walking it back or admitting that perhaps he had overstated the case he’s doubling down, belligerently.

          Ken, you really are an idiot.

          1. “Ken spent an entire evening a few months ago defending slavery and tribal warfare, so it doesn’t surprise me that he’d post something this stupid.”

            What the hell are you talkin’ about?!

            You got a link for that?

            “And in typical Ken fashion instead of walking it back or admitting that perhaps he had overstated the case”

            What case did I overstate?

            1. “Ken spent an entire evening a few months ago defending slavery and tribal warfare, so it doesn’t surprise me that he’d post something this stupid.”

              Thinking back, maybe you’re referring to me condemning the use of abolitionism as a justification for British Imperialism?

              I’d have to see the link.

              If that’s what you’re talking about, I didn’t defend slavery any more than I defended Saddam Hussein’s authoritarianism by attacking the Bush Administration use of spreading democracy as a justification for invading Iraq.

              You following this time?

              Just because I don’t buy democracy as a justification for invading Iraq doesn’t mean I’m defending Saddam Hussein’s authoritarianism, and just because I don’t buy abolitionism as a justification for British Imperialism in Africa doesn’t mean I support slavery.

            2. Here it is Kenny. You went so far as to claim that condemning tribalism and slavery was itself cultural imperialism.

              And yeah Kenny, you tried the Iraq War/democracy distraction in that thread too.

              1. Shit I should have read farther down, it gets worse:

                As I posted elsewhere, there are things I prefer for qualitative reasons even if they mean more violence.

                Like gun rights. Even if gun rights means more innocent dead children are killed in gang warfare, I prefer to have my gun rights anyway.

                I forgot that you actually compared negative rights to tribal warfare and slavery.

              2. “Incidentally, Britain’s adventure with imperialism in Africa began with good intentions. It was originally meant by abolitionists (we’d call them progressives), who wanted to stamp out slavery at its source in Africa. It ended in tears–as such thing inevitably do. In the end, Africa being in the state its in, certainly in Nigeria, is in no small part due to the efforts of people from the UK trying to solve their problems from the outside.

                Anybody who was forced to read Achebe’s Things Fall Apart in college should see why we shouldn’t get involved in Nigeria.

                The amazing thing is that the Nigerians themselves have show themselves extremely reluctant to let outsiders come in and try to solve their problems for them–precisely because of their experience with colonialism–and everyone’s ignoring that.

                How could the Nigerians be so silly? Don’t they know our intentions are good? Why can’t we centrally plan other people’s cultures? It’s for their own good! And as soon as we find those girls, we’ll be outta there anyway!

                The Nigerians have seen this all before. When they they seem reluctant to accept our assistance, we should pay attention.

                This is the part about how I was “defending slavery”?

                I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re an idiot withe reading comprehension problems rather than a liar.

                My post was about why the United States shouldn’t be sending American troops to Nigeria.

                1. Actually, we’ll have to go with liar–because this was pointed out to you regularly before:

                  “All I defended was not colonizing and subjugating people. Certainly not because the government justified it by claiming it was to stop slavery.

                  How many times have I made that clear in this thread?

                  Not believing that the Iraq War was really about WMD and stopping Al Qaeda, by the way, doesn’t mean I support WMD or Al Qaeda either.

                  You just got stuck like a pig with defending all kinds of disgusting statist authoritarianism in the name of whatever some sick oppressive government uses as a fig leaf–and you’re not big enough to own up to the fact that you don’t understand what you read…

                  But that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                  Because the other explanation is that you’re easily manipulated into supporting whatever some authoritarian statist fuck uses as a fig leaf–and a fig leaf is all it takes to make you disown real libertarians and denounce them in public.”

                  https://reason.com/blog/2014/05…..nt_4504672

                  It’s amazing that you’d remember a thread from May–and still not have learned anything since!

                  1. You’re what, some kind of neo-conservative Republican true believer or something? Is that why you call yourself “Redman”?

                    Well I’m not. I’m a libertarian.

                    You think that British Imperialism stopped slavery (which it didn’t) and tribal warfare (which it didn’t), and, apparently, you seem to think the Iraq War stopped Al Qaeda in Iraq (which it didn’t) and brought democracy (which it didn’t), too? And you think people who would oppose British Imperialism are in favor of slavery? And people who opposed British Imperialism are favor of tribal warfare?

                    I suppose people who opposed the invasion of Iraq were in favor of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein–in your mind–too?!

                    You obviously can’t learn from history, not even modern history–so there’s no point in trying to reason with you. But you should take note of the fact that most libertarians don’t simply buy the government’s justification for doing things–just because they wave a flag around and say they’re against slavery or terrorism.

                    Seriously.

                    You should also note that people who are willing to forgo their rights and liberties in exchange for bogus assurances of security are stupid cowards. Yeah, if you’re willing to trade your Second Amendment rights in because (like with Bush’s idiotic war or with British Imperialism) the government promises more security?

                    Then you missed an important lecture in Libertarian 101.

                    1. Well I’m not. I’m a libertarian.

                      No Ken, no you’re not.

                      And again you do exactly what you did in that thread, lied about my position.

                      You are not only an idiot, you are a dishonest piece of shit bordering on mtrueman or Tony levels of mendacity.

                  2. It’s amazing that you’d remember a thread from May–and still not have learned anything since!

                    What is there to learn Ken, that you are a moral relativist moron who is divorced from reality? I already learned that, in May.

                    I remember it because it is the most surreal interaction I’ve ever had on the internet, much less HnR, that a person actually claimed that it was libertarian to condemn those who condemn slavery and tribalism. It was (and still is) breathtaking in both its audacity and sheer stupidity. And it’s relevant here because you engaged in the same kind of utterly blind to reality mealy-mouthed moral relativism then as you do above.

                  3. Actually, we’ll have to go with liar–because this was pointed out to you regularly before:

                    I just wanted to mention how hilarious it is just how lightning quick you resort to personal insults, while simultaneously screaming about it.

                    1. “I just wanted to mention how hilarious it is just how lightning quick you resort to personal insults, while simultaneously screaming about it.”

                      Calling someone a name isn’t just a personal attack when you’re telling the truth about what they do (and who they are).

                      You said I spent an afternoon defending slavery.

                      You’re a liar.

                      I know there are a lot of people out there who are such big liars that being called a liar doesn’t matter to them. Maybe you’re one of those? I don’t know.

                      I don’t care.

                      I just know that when somebody lies about me, I call them a liar. Do you imagine that no one is supposed to call you out as a liar–no matter how much you lie–because that would amount to a personal attack? If you don’t want to be called out as a liar, then you should stop lying. If you don’t care how much you lie, then that isn’t on my for personally attacking you by calling you a liar. That’s on your family for failing to teach you not to lie.

                    2. Except I didn’t lie Ken, I called you out for exactly what you did. You probably didn’t intend to do so, which is why I’ve asked you if you read your posts and think about them before you post them, but your inability to express yourself does not make me a liar.

                      You post stupid shit, get called on it, and then double down defending your stupid position. You claimed that condemnation of slavery and tribalism is making “qualitative judgement” and therefore equivalent to imperialism/colonialism (the old moral relativist’s yarn about cultural imperialism), you compared barbarism to negative rights in the same light, and I suspect that you finally realized how fucking far off the reservation you had traveled and then started calling me a liar and troll.

                      You did these things Ken. You. To point out that you did them is not lying.

                      And you did the exact same stupid fucking thing in this thread. This time though, I think you realized just how goddamn dumb the stupid ass comparison to Islam and the United States (ever, much less pre-’70s) on the subject of women’s rights and you decided to avoid responding to it, but you’re such a narcissistic ass that you couldn’t simply own up to it.

                2. This is the part about how I was “defending slavery”?

                  No this is the part where you demonstrated that you don’t know what fucking quotation marks are then proceeded to argue with what you really wanted my post to say.

                  I’m not going to refight that thread because I already did it 7 months ago, but I will repost the post that generated the sub-thread:

                  I do not believe Nigeria was a corrupt nation state before the British arrived.

                  You may not share their values. They were undoubtedly more warlike, and some of their cultural practices may seem barbaric to us today.

                  But they were not a corrupt nation state.

          2. “Ken spent an entire evening a few months ago defending slavery”

            Speaking of people overstating their case!

            Sheesh.

    3. If justice is blind, how would she know who painted what?

  2. Sitting through that trial had to be like watching paint dry.

  3. I’m sure that everyone in the courtroom was goggle-eyed at the result.

  4. before I looked at the check of $5261 , I didnt believe that…my… neighbour could truley taking home money in their spare time at there computar. . there aunts neighbour has done this 4 only and just cleared the dept on their mini mansion and bourt Honda . site link….

    ?????? http://bit.ly/11Rw9PV

  5. The critics who have gushed over the likes of Andres Serrano have no high ground from which to criticize these, to my eye admittedly awful, paintings. Ultimately the judgement of History will be rendered, and I strongly suspect that one result will be the ash-canning of one heck of a lot of “Award Winning” art from the last fifty years or so.

  6. my co-worker’s ex-wife makes $80 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her pay was $13204 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read More Here….
    ?????http://www.netjob70.com

  7. my co-worker’s ex-wife makes $80 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her pay was $13204 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read More Here….
    ?????http://www.netjob70.com

  8. In summary, rich Hollywood director and collector of bad art makes movie promoting bad art. (Probably in hopes that the movie will make the price of the bad art jump up so the director can dump his collection onto the market to get out from under it.)

  9. my neighbor’s step-mother makes $66 an hour on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her income was $18451 just working on the laptop for a few hours. hop over to this website,,,,,,,,,,,

    http://www.Jobs700.com

  10. just before I saw the receipt which said $5461 , I didnt believe …that…my mom in-law woz like they say actually bringing in money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this 4 only about twenty months and by now paid the mortgage on there house and purchased themselves a Audi Quattro . this link………..www.netjob70.com

  11. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ????? ???
    ???????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.