Jobs (2013) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
250 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A true mess of film making
mcelroyronald15 August 2013
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.
407 out of 531 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"Jobs" is a biopic with a very narrow focus, and without any sense of risk or adventure.
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.
130 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you want a good movie about Steve jobs watch Pirates of Silicon Valley
oalhinnawi16 August 2013
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
163 out of 242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"Jobs" could have been "insanely great" but instead gives a lackluster glance at the highlights and lowlights of Steve Jobs' life.
cnkaufmann18 August 2013
Warning: 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.

Chris Kaufmann
46 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not what the audience wanted, but still an amazing movie
gasboz27 September 2013
Apple is currently the highest net worth company in the world and to own any of the Apple gadgets has become a status symbol. Steve Jobs is an idol, a revolutionary and an inspiration to the millions of people who want to change the world. After his death, his legendary status grew even more (as it always does with passed away celebrities), so it is perfectly reasonable that there were high expectations for this movie. People were expecting a grand masterpiece of epic proportions about a man who many want to relate to and who many want to be.

Unfortunately, the movie took a slightly different turn and the result of this can be seen on the IMDb movie score. This movie is not an epic journey of a strange protégé who eventually achieved everything there was to achieve and was carried on the arms of a cheering crowd at the end, followed by the end credits. NO! This is a movie about Jobs - about his personality, about his decisions, about his victories and about his failures. It is a cruel representation of what you have to go through in this world to achieve the status that he now has.

It's a movie about a troubled hipster who wanted to learn and to achieve something, but hated the system into which the young are thrown into. He dropped out of College but still attended some classes, he got into fights at work because he would yell at his coworkers that they were not doing their job, he took other peoples ideas, remade them into a story and sold them with his speeches and he wanted all. He was stubborn, he always wanted the impossible and here comes the part that made him a legend: he always got the impossible out of people.

Eventually he was driven from his company, he made bad calls, bad decisions, bad products, but later came back and dominated the computer scene again. He probably had more bad moments than good, but it's the good ones that count...and it's the good ones that changed the world.

The people didn't get what they wanted...they didn't get a people's hero nor the man that was always right. And no one wants to see a movie about a man who nobody liked half of the movie...but it is how he was and you have to accept that.

Ashton Kutcher's portrayal was also quite good and it seems that all the comedy movies and series that he has done have earned him a title of a bad actor, so you will hear a lot people saying this was a miss cast. Don't believe this people: go see the movie and make up your own mind.

So don't be discouraged by the low IMDb ranking and see this movie with expectations of a great movie about a man who was an inventor, a visionary, a man who changed the world, but was still only that: a man, nothing more, nothing less.

P.s. Don't expect to see any modern products in this movie. At the beginning, you will only briefly get to see the first generation Ipod, while other products are all the ones from the era before 1996. The movie actually ends in 1996, so many are disappointed that the movie did not show the era of Ipod's, Ipad's, Iphone's and Macbook's.
28 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wait Till it Comes to the Small Screen
woodiah17 August 2013
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!
55 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An utterly perfunctory retelling of the Apple founder's ups and downs in his early professional years that is good only for the completely ignorant
moviexclusive6 August 2013
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.
150 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A 2 hour Apple computer commercial
Da ve15 August 2013
Warning: 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… It should 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.
61 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Searching for Jobs. No Jobs here. This Jobs did pretty okay still.
ironhorse_iv10 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was no 2010's Social Network, but Jobs did an alright job. This movie seem to be the walking talking movie commercial that Apple need. It seems like an extended Apple ad. It was too much Apple to chew enough in my opinion. At less, Social Network gave us a break from praising Facebook because Zuckerberg is portray as a successful man who also suffer from it. He betray his friends to get where he is or his friends end up betraying him because of his success. This movie praise Jobs way too much, and act lie every success that Apple had was because of Steve Jobs. In my opinion, he wasn't the brilliant mind that the media portray him to be. He was just narcissism enough to run a business savvy, but he did get a lot of help from a lot of people. In my opinion, Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) deserves more credit than Jobs. He is the one that pretty much create Apple. Still, this movie wasn't as good as 1999's TV mini movie, Pirates of Silicon Valley that follow Steve Jobs and Bill Gate's career even better. In my opinion, Jobs was alright biographical flick. The movie follows Steve Job's life from 1974 while a student at Reed College to the introduction of the iPod in 2001. I guess, the film didn't care about his success with the IPHONE, and IPAD. Nor does this film want to tackle the pancreas neuroendocrine tumor that he suffer from in his later life. It doesn't even mention what we was going between him getting fired and him getting rehired by Apple. Where is NeXT? NeXT was very important in the telling of Steve Jobs life. It was his lowest point. They didn't even mention Pixar for crying out loud! One of the reason why Steve Jobs got his job back at Apple. It even cut out most of the best part about Apple. The rival between Apple and Microsoft was cut to a 3 minute talk. No, Bill Gates, no anything. The film seem to be missing, a good chuck of his life right there. I would love to know how he create those items. Sadly, the film directed by Joshua Michael Stern doesn't do that. I wish this movie was created as a mini-series rather than this to focus more of those things that wasn't mention in the film. The film was written by Matt Whiteley and had Steve Jobs portrayed by Ashton Kutcher. While, I'm not the biggest Ashton Kutcher fan, I think a lot of criticize about his acting might be a bit harsh. Honestly, I think a lot of criticize is coming from his work outside of this film. If you going to be a critic, at less, tell them why Ashton Kutcher didn't work for the role. In my opinion, he wasn't bad in the film, but he wasn't good, too. I just found the whole thing about him not wearing shoes a bit odd. At less, Ashton Kutcher put some research into his role, and did the same diet as Jobs. He went to the ER because of that. That shows you that he was serious about his role. The meadow scene was laughable and show Ashton Kutcher limited ranged. The real Steve Jobs was a bit of jerk, and I like how the film hints about it. People follow him like sheep and if you disagree with him. He will fired you or sue you. I don't know, how watching a jerk is appealing. I think people are romanticized him way too much. I think most people coming in to see this movie, thinks that way. To watch the 1984 ad on the big screen, and think about how Apple is now. Apple has become what it wanted to fight against. A censoring, all powerful organization that control the market. In my opinion, Apple is way too big. Apple outsource manufacturing jobs to Asia to make their products for a cheaper price, and we buy it. Rather, Apple only gives short term goals servable jobs to Americans. If, they gave more long term manufacturing jobs here. Maybe, I would praise Apple more. There is no need to praise an American company when there is a period of high unemployment here in the US. In my harsh opinion, the film was like watching Thomas Edison take credit for the light bulb and other products, when in truth, other people made it in his workshop. This movie is the fan boys of Apple products. In my opinion, the Apple products are a bit overrated, often rip off or stolen. The pacing of the film was pretty bad. A good example is how Jobs didn't accepted his daughter Lisa (Annnika Bertea) beforehand and then the film cut to later on his life, without explaining anything, Jobs accepted his daughter in his life. How on earth did that get resolved? It's never explain. The movie need to talk about his complexities more. It only hints. It fails to connect with people. I do hope Aaron Sorkin do end up picking up the Steve Jobs bio-pic project and writes better than this movie. I found no jobs here.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kutcher is so wrong for this movie
pitt-penguin18 August 2013
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.
155 out of 265 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great movie idea, horrible follow through
beara53026 September 2013
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.
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2 hours of my life wasted
luci197722 October 2013
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 dimension"..

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.
44 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"Kutcher Bias" belies GREAT performance and movie
McMurphy10 April 2015
This movie easily ranks among the movies I most disagree with the critics on.

Why they HATE it?


It's painfully obvious that their was a "Kutcher bias." The last thing nerds and GROUP-THINK-CRITICS are going to be open to is a model-turned-actor taking on the role of one of the most accomplished men of his generation, esp. so soon after his death.

Not only did he nail the role, but he took the responsibility so seriously, and did such a great job, that he actually paid homage to the much deserving Jobs.


I admit. I was bias too...

...until I saw how much Kutcher embodied Jobs. I couldn't believe he could do it. I didn't think he had it in him. I was wrong.

This is coming from a cinephile EXTREMELY sensitive to poor acting, and yet Kutcher sold me--hook, line, and sinker.

Not only did Kutcher nail the role, but it was a DAMN GOOD MOVIE.

I've seen it twice now, and I look forward to the next time. It is inspiring, and it engenders that sense of magic and possibilities so few movies do.

It is just a great, gripping, story. I was "in it" every step of the way. I didn't see Kutcher. I saw Jobs, and one hell of a ride.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The name is JOBS … steve jobs
Maneck K25 August 2013
It is somewhat ironical that the man who always signed his name in the lower case 'steven p. jobs' has the movie in his name titled in capital JOBS. For me this was the most awaited movie of the year, more so because of having read the biography a couple of times. The ironies however does not end with the case of the font but the perfectionist he was, I am sure if among us today he would have wanted some (major) iterations in the movie before his actual story came out to the public. A movie reaches out to a much wider audience exponentially than a book and those of you who have read the book should agree with me that movie did not do complete justice to Jobs biopic.

Joshua Michael Stern who is known for directing dramas, has concentrated more on the dramatic side of Jobs rather than the genius his was. He has failed to explain the reason behind his outbursts, his mad passion for perfection, and the primary reason for the personality that was the Steve Jobs. I would not dwell into the particular events but Stern could have shown the cause and consequence for the milestones he achieved. Whether it was shortage of time or bad script writing the movie would fail to connect with audience who do not much about Jobs. Moreover, important events which made Jobs what he is like the creation of NeXT, the buying of Pixar and his fight with cancer are completely missing.

Ashton Kutcher has come a long way from portraying the stupid kid in That 70's show to portraying one of the geniuses of our generation. He is eerily similar to the original Steve Jobs and full marks to him for taking on the nuances, the body language and the talking style of the Apple founder. The jaw line was perfect and as a young Jobs he was flawless. The script could have given him more to showcase his acting prowess but sadly the whole movie cracked around there. I am sure Jobs family would also share the view of Kutcher doing a brilliant "JOB".

The only other character worth mentioning is that of Mike Marrkula played by Dermot Mulroney a brilliant actor with an equally brilliant performance. Matthew Modine, James Woods, John Getz and others are just supporting the main man as the in his real life it was all about himself. The music is good and you get to hear some famous Bob Dylan songs in the movie, as Steve was a big Dylan fan all this life.

Even though for me Steve Jobs life has been a 5/5, I had expected a much better product from the production and so would have Jobs. A 3/5 from me sadly for the movie and for all the Jobs and Apple fans this is a must watch. However I would suggest you read the book before going to the movie. Alternatively, if you have seen the movie and not the read the book, now is the time to pick it up and do it.
35 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as bad as they say, not at all
Warning: Spoilers
2015 may be the year of Steve Jobs in terms of movies. Michael Fassbender is considered an Oscar front-runner in a film directed by Danny Boyle, Academy Award winner for "Slumdog Millionaire". However, there also already was a Steve Jobs biopic done 2 years ago. It has not received favorable reviews as a whole and director Joshua Michael Stern is fairly unknown just like writer Matt Whiteley. The main character is played by Ashton Kutcher here and he got a Razzie performance for his portrayal. I personally believe this was not justified. He did a fairly decent job in portraying the Apple mastermind and you could definitely see Jobs' mannerisms in Kutcher's performance. Also a thumbs-up for the makeup department. Kutcher looks nothing like Jobs, but they made it work.

I believe that, as a whole, this was a movie that did not have really many great moments, but it was solid from start to finish and even at a massive runtime of over 2 hours, there were hardly no segments when the film dragged. This has received a lot of unjust criticism. I personally enjoyed the watch and it also made an informative impact as it tells you a lot about the life and career of Steve Jobs. I myself never worked with an Apple computer, certainly prefer Windows, so it's even more impressive that I got to like this film. Thumbs up. Good job from everybody involved.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie is not exactly about Steve Jobs :-/
hesonic14 August 2013
The title of the movie says "Jobs". So I am expecting story about Jobs. What I got? This movie can't be further from what the title promises.

The essence of the Steve Jobs is his love for the perfection and absolutely best and absolutely innovative products.

Unfortunately this movie is not about Jobs work, it's not about how he made products, it's not about how he changed our lives. This movie is focusing only for one thing. How managers did fight for Apple. It was so boring.

Absolutely unfair against Steve Jobs and his legacy.

Rename this movie to "Fight for control of the Apple Corp" and maybe, just maybe, this movie would be worth it.
60 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Arrogance alone does not make the most valued company in the world
Arit27 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film's biggest problem is that Ashton Kutcher's portrayal of the title character uses the same presentation-like delivery for almost every scene. This approach works when he is actually doing a presentation, but it is simply a distraction when used in scenes where he is at home with his family. Of course, it is meant to show that Steve Jobs was in a constantly elevated state of mind even around his most beloved, but the film takes his aloof attitude and bad temper as far as he is almost dehumanized at the end.

"JOBS" starts out feeling realistic when the title character first introduces the iPod and harks back to his student days, but from there it almost resembles the biopics of rock musicians who fall out of their heydays due to alcoholism and substance abuse. By the end Kutcher is portraying the most arrogant lunatic on the planet instead of the most inspirational entrepreneur of our time, and there is not an explanation why he has become so mentally detached from the world surrounding him. The most disappointing omission of all, however, is the lack of his "Toy Story" aspect, a portion of his life which could have substantially restored his humanity in this film.
45 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quite honest from everything I have read and seen about the real man
gee1973-116 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have never felt compelled to write a film review in my life before, but after seeing such a low rating for a film that does try hard to tell such a complex story, I just had to give it a go.

Firstly, I can't say that I have ever been, or not been a fan of Ashton Kutcher so my opinion is solely based on his performance in Jobs. At times, his portrayal seems a little clunky as he tries to master the walk of Steve Jobs he has an awkward kind of stoop which doesn't translate well on film. However, there are other times when AK's performance is incredible, his voice is near perfect pitch, his body language, mannerisms and words are so in-tuned to Steve he could be channeling him.

One reason that the film has lower ratings is, in my eyes, that most people who see it won't have a great knowledge of the intense man that was SJ. He was a brute, a tyrant and at times appeared crazy. If you read the biography by Walter Isaacson you will probably get a clearer picture. Perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that it cuts off just before all the really good stuff came along, the iPod, iTunes, iPhone and iPad. The film also does not deal with Jobs' cancer or death, which just leads to a feeling that it is incomplete.

I personally liked the film and I don't think that it tarnishes Jobs' memory, like I said he wasn't a saint (oh BTW, he is also a hero of mine) it is just a complicated, sometimes haphazard, chronicle of an even more complicated man.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
My Worst Hollywood film
daudlatif-amoon17 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film was quite pathetic! Long, slow and without a strong foundation, you never notice how the started and how it ended. Slow&Long wouldn't matter to me as long as the story is exceptional. I was startled when I heard that the critics bashed this movie pretty bad and I thought they might be wrong, but they were right! Ashton Kutcher have the worst performance of his career, he was so artificial and so I judged from the opening scene that this movies probably gonna be a marathon. He tried so hard to act like Jobs and amid this crises he made himself so fake which obviously bantered the character. Just because he looked like him doesn't mean he can portray Jobs!

Enough about Kutcher, if the story would have been epic it could have overshadowed Kutcher's gruesome acting. But the MAIN drop back of this film was the story, I mean it's pretty frustrating because you watch a movie to see/listen to a story & when you don't have an idea what the story is it's a big kick on the face of the maker and writers. Seemed like a student procrastinated on an essay the night before, threw a bunch of crap and submitted. On difference is that the maker of Jobs spent money for throwing crap. From the point of an avid movie goer it's hard to fathom how can someone put so much time and money to make something that wouldn't work.

Well all we can do see warn people to not waste their time and money on this movie!
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ashton Kuthcher, although never my first choice for jobs, he pulled it off.
michaelalanharlow23 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
In all actuality, no one will never truly know how Steve jobs really was as an overseer and company head. As a story, Ashton Kutcher pulled it off just as good as Noah Wiley, the catch..... his voice. Kutcher carries a throaty, teen-like voice that doesn't match up to the forever renowned Steve Jobs, But he pulled it off perfectly in looks and mannerisms. There are many scenes where Kutcher plays a convincing jobs just by looks alone, except however when any voice-volume comes about. This movie played the "described" Steve jobs to a T. The story was slow in certain spaces and even entered a lull in some, but it stayed true to the heart of an ambitious young man, in the heart of silicon valley who had a vision and a dream. Sure you may say "tis movie doesn't capture the true heart of Steve jobs, but who could other than the great himself. To the "anti" critics, give Kutcher a chance because any biographical role is hard for any actor...... lets see you do it. The film focuses on the early and critical years of apple and evolves into where Jobs returns as CEO in the late 90's which is almost a prequel, so in all actuality, let it be that. Like any tasteful biography should be, it doesn't focus on his death, it focuses on what good the man did for this world. Don't consider this movie as a full on true story because its not. Consider it as a good story with great historical points in general, telling the story of a man who perfection was the only option. It tells the story of a man with ambition. Even though there weren't many "teaching points" in the movie, it really doesn't matter because thats what we have "google" for, but be prepared for opinions. I gave this movie an 8 because it deserves every little point it can get as long as its worth the rating, and this one got an 8 from me. As an early 80's child who saw the birth of the mac in my living room, I can honestly say that the ambition put into the mac bled all over my living room and I felt the future every time I touched the desk. This movie allowed me to relive what it took to get that mac in my house. The mac will always be the ONLY PC ever, all others are just copycat remakes of he 1980s, trying to push Job's vision in another name and form to the public. Just to add a note, If it wasn't for Jobs's education programs, I never would have felt the need and use of a PC. My mother was a teacher who got hers on an extreme discount because of the school that hired her, way before windows was ever introduced. This isn't a story of computers, iPhones or iPods, this is a story of a man who invented windows, and yeah, he did invent Windows. Without Jobs,Gates would have never created Windows. Its just a good story! exclamation point!
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
vouty2 March 2013
Despite its flaws, the movie was, at times, inspirational. The music took you back to the 1970s and was particularly uplifting. Like most of us back in the 1970s, Apple founders were not primarily motivated by dollar signs, but by something grander. As for Kutcher's portrayal of Jobs, he did a helluva good impression- according to Apple folks who were at the screening I attended. The dialog accurately reflects whats already out there in print (re:Isaacson and Moritz books on Jobs and the history of Apple computer).

Like many docudramas I've seen, the film had trouble creating the kind of underlying drama that a fictional account could do and the movie suffered a little bit from not having much of a back story. Nonetheless...

This is a very worthwhile movie that goes beyond the character of Steve Jobs, but reflects on the struggle of a visionary leader and a team of geniuses who took no shortcuts to create something beautiful and worthwhile.
76 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jobs is a Chore
cultfilmfreaksdotcom19 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
During the first five minutes of JOBS, as Ashton Kutcher – playing Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs – heads a 2001 meeting introducing the iPod, judging by the grandiose soundtrack you'd think he invented the wheel (or created the universe) and not just a state-of-the-art Walkman…

From this meeting we travel back to 1974, where Kutcher's Jobs is a bearded loafer who doesn't fit into college life, or anywhere for that matter. After taking LSD he realizes something unclear to the audience and his slacker buddies... But in the blink of an eye he's working at Atari, screaming like a jerk boss even before becoming one.

His sidekick is Steve Wozniak, the pioneering engineer who built the first Apple computer. Nicknamed Woz and played by short and tubby Josh Gad, he's the intentional audience favorite using witty sarcasm to alleviate the tension of his climbing, and often cutthroat, entrepreneurial partner.

Gad, in playing a goofy sidekick more than a real person, partially redeems himself during the first of two heartfelt pleas to Jobs, who, during the early 80's when Apple got really big, turned more corporate-minded than artistic.

And just as we jumped from college to Atari, there's an awkward cut from the initial team working out of Steve's father's garage to the immense Apple building, where several characters are forgotten and Jobs doesn't gel with the "stiff suits" including Dermot Mulroney's backer Mike Markkula, a one time confidant and good friend.

The best scenes occur in and out of that dusty garage, the rudimentary Apple compound: sadly we're not in this pivotal era long enough. Much of the film has Jobs desperately battling the powers-that-be in chilly white-walled offices.

Kutcher's piercing eyes are narrowed intensely, and he's surprisingly effective but otherwise burdened by a forced imitation of quirky physical mannerisms… Walking with a bent-forward T-Rex posture is distracting and downright unnecessary (the audience was giggling throughout).

Although there are interesting moments, and we learn some important lessons in tech history, JOBS is hardly a biographical film: Overlong scenes with uncreative CEO's demolishing each new idea are tedious, repetitive, and overwhelming.

When the bigwigs aren't around, and Jobs passionately lectures his minions on how to create usable products for the future, the film plays out like a melodramatic commercial for Apple products, which might have been intentional: If Steve Jobs wasn't so uncaring and temperamental, they'd probably have him walking on water... or creating the shoes to make it happen.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This Jobs biopic lacks a heart and soul
estebangonzalez104 October 2013
"If you don't share our enthusiasm and care for the vision of this company. Get out! You're done."

How could you make a biopic about an inspirational and visionary man in such a bland manner? The film lacked the very elements that made Steve Jobs such a creative entrepreneur. It's a shame because the subject matter alone almost guarantees you will watch a great film. Jobs has altered our lives; at this very moment I'm writing from one of his Mac computers while my brothers are chatting on their iphones and listening to music on their ipods. Somehow such great material got lost along the way and this Joshua Michael Stern directed film simply looks like a made for TV biopic. It is one of those movies that are so uninspired and consist of bad writing that you simply thought it was made for TV. Take for example The Social Network, a film about the creator of Facebook, a biopic I thought beforehand was going to be dull and boring, but was completely blown away by Aaron Sorkin's script. He made Mark Zuckerberg look completely appealing. But here we have a much more visionary person like Steve Jobs whose story we all want to see told on film and the result from Matt Whiteley's script is completely uninspiring. The film could be called Apple Inc because it felt like it focused more on his creation than on the creator. There is nothing innovative about this biopic, but the good news is that Aaron Sorkin is working on a script for another Steve Jobs biopic that hopefully will make justice of such an inspirational man. I can't even blame Ashton Kutcher for the failure of this film, because the main problem here was that the script was so bland that all we had were one dimensional characters having uninspired dialogues. If I had never heard of Jobs before I would've thought that this visionary and charismatic leader was simply a dull and unloving person. You simply don't care for the Steve Jobs that's presented here.

The film begins by introducing us to Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) as he is presenting his latest creation, the ipod which will change the way people listen to music everywhere (as we already know). That is as far as the film goes as we jump back to the past and see Steve dropping out of college sometime during the 70's. He attended some creative classes simply as a drop in, but he spent most of his time getting high with his friend Daniel (Lukas Haas), with whom he also travelled to India for a spiritual visit. Back at the US, Jobs worked at Atari where he had trouble getting along with his coworkers. He was offered a special deal to create a circuit board and that is where he got his friend Woz (Josh Gad) to help him out. After having success, Jobs and Woz partnered together selling circuit boards and founded their own small business in his parents' garage. Along with Daniel and Woz, Steve hired Rod Holt (Ron Eldard) to help out with the engineering of the first Apple computer. Their next challenge was to get the funding needed to build the company, which they finally got from Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney). The film then goes on to focus on Apple's early success and later Steve's trouble getting along with the company's CEO, John Sculley (Matthew Modine), his forced retirement from his own company and then his return to Apple several years later.

It's a shame the film focused so much on Jobs's turmoil years and left out the most creative period of his life: his successful return to Apple. I was OK with the fact that it showed his early beginnings at his garage because that is where the dream was born, but I wish the film would've focused more on his successes. Jobs wasn't portrayed as a saint either, and that is a plus, we see how turbulent and erratic his behavior was at times as a temperamental manager. Ashton Kutcher wasn't terrible as Jobs, he got some of his posture right (the scene where he walks across the hallway at Apple is near perfect) and at times the tone of his voice was also right, but I also felt that there were several scenes where he lost that voice and simply became Ashton Kutcher again. The narrative structure of the film didn't work either. I felt there were so many moments that seemed disconnected at times and rushed. It's like they got some details right, but the motivation behind Jobs' work was left out. His character lacked depth and so did everyone else's who simply come in and out of the film to set the next stage. I don't think that the perfectionist "Father of the Digital Revolution" would've approved of this movie if he were alive today. The biopic simply scratches the surface of Jobs' life, but stays away from his heart and what really motivated him to be the visionary innovator he was. I'll be looking forward to Sorkin's take on his life.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Completely Fictional
aero-windwalker28 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers

The creator of Macintosh, Jef Raskin, had about 5 minutes in the movie and was portrayed as a silly person. In reality, Jef is visionary, and reinvented (or stole, in Jobs' words) the concept of integrating Graphic Interface, and Mouse (his original design was made in reality in 2005 as "Mighty Mouse" when the technology became mature) into personal computing.

When Jobs took over Macintosh project, because of "political" reason, and his own pride, he took what Jef had and gave it to IDEO and had them redesign it so Jobs can claim to the ownership of the project. Because of all these "bullshit" Jobs took three years to establish a commercial product when Apple products are outdated in the market. Jobs' unrealistic (and the reason being he didn't understand technology) approach is like if say today I took over Apple and say, no, let's do all these functions but we are going to not sell any of our products, but just sell a super iPhone that has the power of today's macbook pro (so maybe we won't have it until 3 years later) and sell it for a cheap price, because I don't have to make money off it.

Yeah, of course I will get kicked out from Apple.

No, Steve Jobs was just a good looking dude who had the ability to get money to start a company in Silicon Valley when there were only nerds around. Much like Ashton Kutcher, Jobs was just a pretty face actor.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews