|Page 1 of 24:||          |
|Index||239 reviews in total|
Steve Jobs isn't a nice guy... he uses people like they are toilet
paper... and he is a taker. It's a great set-up for a slammin' movie.
Unfortunitely, this movie seems incomplete and without heart. More
accurately, most of the scenes seem incomplete, disjointed and
pointless. It all adds up to nothing.
Problem #1) You don't care for Jobs and you leave the theater not knowing Jobs. There are few emotional moments in the movie - except when you want to spit on him. Fire this person unnecessarily; deny that loyal employee well-earned benefit; use your wealth to destabilize the company... it all describes someone you are glad you don't know personally or professionally.
Problem #2) The movie is paced slower than my Aunt Minnie in a walker. I've seen paint dry faster.
Problem #3) The acting... maybe I should say the affectations. Kutcher over-emphasized Jobs odd gate and stance as if it meant something. But why distract us with an antalgic back, hyper-extension of the knees, increased lordosis and anterior propulsion? It distracted from the story and took me out of the movie every time.
Problem #4) The editing was horrible. Scenes would start and finish randomly - with no emotional content. Many scenes had no relationship to the structure of the movie - taking valuable time and adding little to nothing; disjointed would be too nice of a word.
Problem #5) The strange arc of the story-line ended before it began in earnest. The writing didn't explain how the apple II was able to sustain the many, many years of subsequent failures. Do corporations really build stockholders via "image", not performance? Metaphysically, I know that untalented a-holes who use, abuse and throw people away deserve to suffer. But we didn't see suffering. We see a fabulously wealthy person, whose emotional system was M.I.A, slide through life on the efforts of others.
There is no teaching moment in this movie. There is no emotional content. There are no memorable lines or moments. This isn't a movie; it feels more like revenge, cold and pointless.
This Feelgood tragedy of the century isn't worth your money. Why the hell did they even make this movie in the first place!? Were there not enough documentaries and TV shows about Apple and Steve Jobs!? Did we really need a butchered version featuring Ashton Kutcher. They spent 8 and a half million dollars making a movie about a guy who already had a lot of movies already Why is Steve Jobsis portrayed here as some sort of hero? It just makes me so mad to think that they could get away with making something like this Spend your 14 dollars and get something to eat while you watch Pirates of Silicon Valley, a much better and much more accurate story of Steve Jobs and Apple's beginnings
Joshua Michael Stern's "Jobs" is like an assembly line for the best
moments in the career of Steve Jobs, but seriously lacking in depth,
and without much significance. It is a truly unremarkable biopic of the
"master of innovation" as you could possibly imagine. "Jobs" follows an
overly safe, unimaginative course that clocks in at a tiresome 122
minutes. The storytelling is painfully straightforward, covering only
the principal events of his professional trials and tribulations, and
providing little else beyond what is already public knowledge.
Developing his imagination for computer programming at Atari, Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) brings in his friend Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to help with the hardware aspect, forming a partnership that would soon lead to the founding and development of Apple Computers, a force within the industry throughout the 1980s. Steve is not prepared for the financial demands and the ruthless business mentality, and is eventually forced out of the company he began, only to return in the 1990s with a fresh game plan on how to bring Apple back into the public consciousness, and to dominate the industry once again.
"Jobs" is a biopic with a very narrow focus, and without any sense of risk or adventure. It is so intent on covering Jobs' entire corporate career, that it simply reduces his personal life to a footnote. Stern completely glosses over Jobs' personal life, which is essential to any self-respecting biopic. The entire production feels rushed and slapped together simply to benefit from being the first one out of the gate.
To his credit, Kutcher puts forth a good effort, and he undeniably looks the part of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately, Ashton always looks like he is trying too hard to play the part, and never fully becomes the character he's portraying. His limitations on the big screen prove to be a major liability. He has developed a screen persona as likable character, which has served him well with numerous TV sitcoms. Not so much with movies.
What emerges is a movie that has "a made for TV" feel, which depicts a self-absorbed creep who stabs everyone in the back to simply to get his way that goes on for two plus hours. A thoroughly unsatisfying tribute, and we are still left none the wiser as to what made "The Father of the Digital Revolution" beyond what we already know.
The first of what will surely be many biopics to come of one of the 20th century's greatest innovators, 'Jobs' only draw is being first out of the gate. Yes, if you haven't yet been acquainted with the tumultuous early years of the Apple founder, then this perfunctory retelling will probably be as good an introduction as any; but everyone else who is familiar with the story will be disappointed with this overly simplistic portrayal of a complex man whose ambition was both his greatest gift as well as his most significant stumbling block. Beginning in 2001 when he unveiled his masterpiece, the iPod, to rapturous applause, Stern and his first-time feature screenwriter Matt Whiteley rewind the clock thirty years ago to 1971 when Jobs was a student at Reed College, Portland. An LSD trip, a journey to India and a brief stint at Atari later, Jobs teams up with his buddy, self-taught engineering wiz Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), to build Apple computers in the former's parents' Los Altos garage. Jobs had the inspired idea to combine a typewriter with a TV, and the Apple II was born - but not without the funding from entrepreneur and former Intel engineer Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney). To find a dramatic hook, Whiteley predictably focuses on the most pivotal turning point in Jobs' life, as Jobs' launch of the Macintosh computer in 1984 sparks off an internal feud with his CEO John Scully (Matthew Modine) and the rest of the Board (including J.K. Simmons' Arthur Rock) that leads to his ouster and the company's subsequent decline. Of course, Jobs makes a return to the flailing company in 1996 upon then-CEO Gil Amelio's (Kevin Dunn) request, returning Apple to its roots in the personal computer market and paving the way for its success today. Is there anything this dramatization adds to that true story which you cannot glean from any text-based account? Hardly; if anything, it merely puts a face to the disbelief, disappointment, indignation and gratification Jobs must have felt when he was kicked out of Apple and then presented with the golden opportunity to rebuild the company into the vision he had for it at the onset. The storytelling is pretty straightforward, covering the important events of his professional ups and downs but providing little details beyond what is already public knowledge. Admittedly, to expect more would probably be a tall order, since the man has passed away and the others who would be familiar with these past events did not participate in the making of this film - including the real-life Woz, who in fact has been a vocal critic of the movie. But more disappointingly, Stern completely glosses over Jobs' personal life and personality, both of which are essential to any self-respecting biopic - after all, how can any biography be complete without an insight into the person whose life story is being told? Whiteley's episodic script is utterly superficial in this regard - and we're not talking about Jobs' drive, determination or innovation. Instead, Jobs' crucial relationship with Wozniak is thinly sketched, not only because it omits how they met and their chemistry, but also because it barely explains why Woz quit Apple dissatisfied with the direction the company was heading and the person that Jobs had become. Other aspects of Jobs' character are given short shrift - for instance, we see Jobs dumping his pregnant girlfriend Chris-Ann Brennan (Ahna O'Reilly) and refusing to recognise his newly born daughter as his own early on, but are given little explanation how and why he settles down and turns into a family man later. If the scripting is a part of the problem, then the acting is yet another. Chiefly, while bearing more than a passing resemblance to Jobs, Ashton Kutcher is not up to the part. To his credit, one can tell Kutcher has put in a lot of effort into the role, emulating his character's awkwardly hunched posture as well as to some degree his voice and gestures; unfortunately Kutcher always looks like he is playing the part, and never quite becoming the character he is supposed to portray. It is an affected performance, and Kutcher's limitations as a dramatic actor are all too apparent here. In fact, the supporting acts steal the show, especially Mulroney's solid turn as Jobs' ally turned adversary. Most of all, Stern's film rarely possesses the qualities that characterised Jobs - it isn't bold enough to offer a balanced, or critical even, perspective of the man (including his more unsavoury personal aspects), nor unique enough to provide a distinctive look at the early years of his storied career. What emerges is simply bland and uninspired filmmaking, which in the context of Jobs' illustrious and intricate life, is an unsatisfying tribute to a man who spent his time being exactly the opposite.
Whoever thought the Kutcher could play Steve Jobs needs their head
examined! He makes the movie so difficult to watch (where was the
director for God's sake!).
But the problems don't end there. Jobs' life is only partially portrayed, so if you only know about Jobs being at Apple--that is still pretty much all you know about him. Engineers are portrayed, as they typically are in "Hollywood" films--nerdy enough to be uncool.
Where is the story??!! Most people will be lost, there is not much continuity, and you are left at the end wondering why you came to the movie. You didn't learn anything new about Jobs, you are not sure what the point was, and yet you spent two painful hours trying to get something out of this film.
It's a shame this movie was so awful.
Let's see, well it was worth seeing for me; however, I wished I had
waited till is came out on television -- Because it was really a "movie
of the week"... do they still have those? To say this movie was weak on
facts would imply they got it ALL wrong - Yes, they made some things up
doing the "hollywood thing" but they didn't even attempt half the
history so they couldn't have gotten it ALL wrong! Parts of his life
missing were glaring!
They glossed over years -- Heck decades at points, concentrating on Apple more than Steve Jobs in my opinion... maybe a better name would have been "Apple & jobs - Some of the Years"!
Wait for the movie to hit your TV and know you will still be missing more than half the story!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Jobs" could have been "insanely great" but instead gives a lackluster
glance at the highlights and low lights of Steve Jobs' life.
While the film is factually accurate from the events cited and statements Steve Jobs made down to the realism of the characters appearances, it lacked character development and a cohesive story. It is well cast and well acted. However, with major events being presented in the film like news headlines, there is no story justifying their existence. Steve Jobs is portrayed giving repeated quoted monologues instead of engaging in real dialog between himself and his co-workers to illustrate the chemistry of their relationships that lead to their success.
Since 1982 I spent most of my adult life using Apple's products, writing thousands of lines of code on the Apple II computer and reading every news story about Apple. The film fails to capture the grueling work and the pride programmers and engineers feel for designing cutting edge hardware and software to create Apple's superior computers and software.
For such a prolific inventor and complex man that Steve Jobs was, I am surprised that a veteran director like Ron Howard or Steven Spielberg didn't direct this. I really wanted to know how Steve Jobs' father-in-law inspired him and instilled in him his drive for perfection. I wanted to learn how Steve started iTunes and invented the iPod. These were not in the movie.
There are many key events in Apple's history the film omitted that were crucial to understanding Apple's success. Steve's idea for the Mac originated with his engineer, Jef Raskin, showing him a prototype bitmapped GUI of Alto computer at the Xerox PARC think tank in 1979. It had the first personal desktop interface of windows, icons, menus and a mouse, a major advancement over the millions of existing command driven PC's in the market using green screen monitors with mono-spaced fonts of 40 characters by 24 lines. Jobs was immediately convinced the Alto interface is the direction Apple Computer must go, so he bought it from Xerox and designed the Lisa and, later the Macintosh on this concept. The film omitted this visit to Xerox.
There was fierce competition in the personal computer industry. A decades-old storied rivalry between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs began in 1985, one year after the Mac debuted. Except for one scene in the film, this rivalry was completely omitted from it. Jobs' was irate that Gates stole Apple's graphic user interface (GUI) from the Macintosh but the film fails to show how this happened. Jobs previously went to Microsoft to hire Bill Gates to write business software (Word, Multiplan, etc.) to enable Apple to sell its new Macintosh computer. In doing so, Microsoft learned how Apple's GUI worked, reverse engineered it and created a similar interface for Microsoft's new Windows operating system to work on the existing millions of IBM computers running Microsoft's Disk Operating System (MS DOS). Microsoft would compete directly against Apple Computer. Though the film does portray Steve Jobs as a disciplinarian, a perfectionist and temperamental, it never shows why he was this way.
The film was remiss of major events and details needed to explain Apple's success story. Jobs got his start in electronics working for Hewlett-Packard after calling founder William Hewlett on the phone at his home. Jobs met Wozniak at HP. And, Jobs used "The HP Way" as a blueprint for starting Apple Computer. Steve Jobs' miraculous turnaround of Apple from near bankrupt to profitable in three years and to the world's largest company in 13 years, business leaders consider the biggest ever success story in the history of American business. How the film could leave out this turnaround (inventing the highly successful iMac, PowerPC, iPod, iTunes and iPhone) is astonishing. Even before coming back to Apple, Jobs re-invented Pixar animation after buying The Graphics Group from George Lucas, revolutionizing animated movies for Disney that were created on NeXT graphics workstations (the most advanced in existence) that Steve Jobs invented. This, too, was omitted from the film.
In one of his biographies, Steve Jobs explains succinctly how the iPod epitomizes Apple Computer, "it combines Apple's incredible technology base with Apple's legendary ease of use with Apple's awesome design." This is the premise upon which "Jobs" should have been based. I recommend the film but with reservations.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Saw a preview screening of 'JOBS' movie, but went away feeling that I
just watched a 2 hour Apple computer commercial instead. I was
entertained but also felt the movie was incorrectly titled
have been called "the Apple Computer Movie"
If you are a Jobs/Apple fan then go see the movie, otherwise save yourself from frustration & wait to watch it on TV. Ashton Kutcher's performance of Steve Jobs was very good. But that doesn't excuse the fact that there were way to many holes in the writing.
They missed to much basic info about Steve Jobs life. I understand that you can't show everything about a person's life in 2 hours. But give me some info. An example: the storyline introduced very serious issues about his infant daughter, then suddenly later she briefly just shows up as a teenager without any explanation or anything in between. No mention about Jobs involvement with Pixar, Disney or music festivals and almost nothing about Steve Jobs life if it didn't have anything to do directly with Apple.
What happened to the ending? Spoiler alert: Steve regains his position at Apple, movie over. (Jobs get his job back) Why not mention his battle with cancer/health issues & death? the story timeline never gets past the 2001 introduction of the ipod, (sorry they didn't get to iphones & ipads)
The music soundtrack had some good classic tracks included but the rest sounded just like the dramatic lonely piano music pulled from the Shawshank Redemption. It worked well but seemed just like I've heard it somewhere before.
There is not much to say about this movie that hasn't been written in
many of the reviews before. The movie is flat, no emotions whatsoever,
no chemistry between the actors, most of the carachters are just "one
I am not an apple fanatic (I have some of their products but I do not change them to follow the flow every year) and I am not blind before the flaws of Jobs' personality, but I'd like to see in the movie all the aspects of the man who, like it or not, left a mark in the IT field. What I saw it is a series of often disconnected episodes, and the few of them which were nice were a re-do of the (much better) the pirates of the Silicon Valley.
Do not waste your time with this movie: if you want to learn more about apple/jobs, read a book, if you are already aware of the story, it simply won't add anything.
Creating a movie biopic about Steve Jobs is a brilliant idea. The
creators had the opportunity to make a significant, informative film
with their character study of the man who formed such a powerful
company. But this one was a failure.
The movie is supposed to be a character study. But honestly this movie doesn't teach us much about Jobs, moreover it gives us a basic time line of his life and company. Kind of like those short 100 page biographies you read in 3rd grade for a book report that just really skim the surface and leave out everything.
This film lacked transition/fluidity and seemed choppy. Like the scene where we see him at his house with his family, the film never discussed that he came to have a wife and children. We only know that Lisa, his daughter, was from a previous relationship. And we learn that he tried to deny Lisa as his for a long time since the film focuses on it, but it never shows that he had a change of heart and accepted her as his child. Isn't a biopic supposed to teach us about a persons emotions, feelings about life, and his relationships with others?
If you want to learn about who Steve Jobs is, read his biography. If you want something that makes you FEEL smart like you know about the genius of a man and Apple Corporation, watch this film.
|Page 1 of 24:||          |
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|