Steve Jobs Reviews

Steve Jobs was a fascinating, though complex, individual, so having a film based on him was always going to peek interest. Then there is the talent involved in 'Steve Jobs', director Danny Boyle who has made some very good films, one of today's most talented script-writers Aaron Sorkin and Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet as the leads.

Found 'Steve Jobs' to be a good and interesting film, albeit not one that will appeal to all viewers as can be seen from the polarising reviews. There is a lot to like here, and the good points are actually excellent. At the same time, considering the involvement of such fine talent and subject matter, 'Steve Jobs' also had potential to be, and perhaps should have been, more than good, great even. There are also a few issues here, and fairly sizeable ones, though there is much more good than there is bad.

There could have been more complexity to Jobs himself, difficult to do for a perfectionist who was very difficult to work with. Can definitely understand the criticism of 'Steve Jobs' being a pretty one-dimensional portrait of the man that magnifies his flaws. For something featuring heavily, his personal/family life could have been better explored and delved into more, there is heart with the relationship between Steve and Lisa but the final fifteen minutes or so to me came over as contrived rather than emotional and although Katherine Waterston does a good job her role is underwritten.

At times, the film is jumpy and also could have shown more of the launches themselves and showed how they were received rather than being told afterwards, for a film so heavily reliant on the backstage/behind the scenes aspects. Actually really liked the script on the most part, it is though talk-heavy and with scenes having a lot to take in there are instances where it's not easy keeping up. Also didn't buy Jobs/Scully's final scene together, which went against what was seen with their acrimonious confrontations before.

However, 'Steve Jobs' is very well made visually. It's unfussy but never cheap, actually it is very slick. It may feel like a filmed play, which is also down to the structure of the film, but for me it wasn't a problem. Boyle directs in a restrained fashion, while showing plenty of engagement with his material. The music is both low-key and lively when used.

While not perfect, Sorkin's script is one of the high points of 'Steve Jobs'. It's thought-provoking, intriguing smart and rapid-fire, with plenty of wit, intensity and snappy put-downs. The story, following an unconventional yet fascinating three act structure dealing with three different launches that Jobs revolutionised, goes at an energetic pace and is kept afloat by the intensity of the characters (especially Jobs and Joanna). Things move quickly and there is plenty to be interested by, one just can't help feeling that some aspects could have been delved into more. Jobs and Joanna have plenty of intensity in their chemistry, while Woz's final scene and the big scenes between Jobs and Scully are especially powerful.

Other than Sorkin's script, 'Steve Jobs' best asset is the acting. Fassbender may not look like Steve Jobs but he is nonetheless terrific and is an incredibly compelling presence. Winslet's performance is tense and deeply felt. Michael Stuhlbarg steals scenes in his not large screen time, while Seth Rogan demonstrates why he should do more dramatic roles and films and Jeff Daniels has not been this good in quite some time. Waterston does well with limited screen time and her role underwritten.

Concluding, good film but not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Steve Jobs was a fascinating, though complex, individual, so having a film based on him was always going to peek interest. Then there is the talent involved in 'Steve Jobs', director Danny Boyle who has made some very good films, one of today's most talented script-writers Aaron Sorkin and Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet as the leads.

Found 'Steve Jobs' to be a good and interesting film, albeit not one that will appeal to all viewers as can be seen from the polarising reviews. There is a lot to like here, and the good points are actually excellent. At the same time, considering the involvement of such fine talent and subject matter, 'Steve Jobs' also had potential to be, and perhaps should have been, more than good, great even. There are also a few issues here, and fairly sizeable ones, though there is much more good than there is bad.

There could have been more complexity to Jobs himself, difficult to do for a perfectionist who was very difficult to work with. Can definitely understand the criticism of 'Steve Jobs' being a pretty one-dimensional portrait of the man that magnifies his flaws. For something featuring heavily, his personal/family life could have been better explored and delved into more, there is heart with the relationship between Steve and Lisa but the final fifteen minutes or so to me came over as contrived rather than emotional and although Katherine Waterston does a good job her role is underwritten.

At times, the film is jumpy and also could have shown more of the launches themselves and showed how they were received rather than being told afterwards, for a film so heavily reliant on the backstage/behind the scenes aspects. Actually really liked the script on the most part, it is though talk-heavy and with scenes having a lot to take in there are instances where it's not easy keeping up. Also didn't buy Jobs/Scully's final scene together, which went against what was seen with their acrimonious confrontations before.

However, 'Steve Jobs' is very well made visually. It's unfussy but never cheap, actually it is very slick. It may feel like a filmed play, which is also down to the structure of the film, but for me it wasn't a problem. Boyle directs in a restrained fashion, while showing plenty of engagement with his material. The music is both low-key and lively when used.

While not perfect, Sorkin's script is one of the high points of 'Steve Jobs'. It's thought-provoking, intriguing smart and rapid-fire, with plenty of wit, intensity and snappy put-downs. The story, following an unconventional yet fascinating three act structure dealing with three different launches that Jobs revolutionised, goes at an energetic pace and is kept afloat by the intensity of the characters (especially Jobs and Joanna). Things move quickly and there is plenty to be interested by, one just can't help feeling that some aspects could have been delved into more. Jobs and Joanna have plenty of intensity in their chemistry, while Woz's final scene and the big scenes between Jobs and Scully are especially powerful.

Other than Sorkin's script, 'Steve Jobs' best asset is the acting. Fassbender may not look like Steve Jobs but he is nonetheless terrific and is an incredibly compelling presence. Winslet's performance is tense and deeply felt. Michael Stuhlbarg steals scenes in his not large screen time, while Seth Rogan demonstrates why he should do more dramatic roles and films and Jeff Daniels has not been this good in quite some time. Waterston does well with limited screen time and her role underwritten.

Concluding, good film but not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

When this movie was released, even though it was critically heralded, it turned out to be a box-office flop. Apparently, the audience didn’t care for another Steve Jobs biopic only a couple of years after another one,  even if it was apparently much superior than its predecessor. Even so, since it sounded really intriguing and since I have always been a big fan of Danny Boyle's work, I was still really eager to check it out. Well, eventually, I was really impressed. Indeed, I really loved this original approach and I thought it turned out to be a much more effective way to learn about a famous figure that the usual bullet points that you get with this genre. As a result, you really get the opportunity to dive into the psychological complexity of this character, thanks also to another really strong performance by Michael Fassbender who remains one of the best actors of his generation. Eventually, you don't really get to know the other characters but you certainly get an interesting glimpse on Steve Jobs who might have been anything from a genius, a rock-star, a philosopher, a tyrant and a sociopath. To conclude, I thought it was a really strong and original biopic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you're interested by this subject.

It's exasperating the never beginning event structure, where everything demmands Jobs' response as a father and human being.

If you're given the task of interpreting a film with the speculative mind of a genius indisputable, it may help not to make too many stupid moves. That said, consider a triumph as well Steve Jobs, a film so innovative and surprising in the design and implementation to leave intimidated.
Michael Fassbender is moving very well in the role of volcanic co-founder and CEO of Apple, a man badly in relationships, but capable of flying very high when it comes to revolutionize the world of personal computers and anything else digital, from music to animation (with Pixar) publishing, up to those iPhone that we are wearing as if they were a second skin. The Jobs of Fassbender is a tornado of ferocity, anger and repressed feelings. It is also fascinating, seductive and fun, which makes it even more dangerous if you get too close.

The screenplay, written by Aaron Sorkin, won an Oscar for The Social Network, is absolutely brilliant. Sorkin has not only followed the bestselling biography by Walter Isaacson: he absorbed in her DNA, and said with a bold structure and a very personal point of view. He divided the film into three periods, each telling the story of the launch of a product created by Steve Jobs, shot in three different formats by Boyle with the help of the talented cinematographer Alwin Kuchler. The first part is in 16mm film in low resolution and is set in 1984 in Cupertino, California, where the 29 year-old Steve Jobs created the first Macintosh. The second, on 35mm, opens with a conference at the San Francisco Opera House in 1988, in which Jobs, downloaded from Apple, NeXT presents the general indifference. The last part, filmed in digital high definition, takes place in 1998 at Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco, where Jobs, again at the helm of Apple, announced a spectacular presentation of the new iMac. As Jobs, who always rush to do the next thing, Sorkin leaves you with the task of keeping up the story. But it is a challenge that is worth collecting.

Congratulations to the teacher Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) for directing the three acts of the script with the pace of a thriller. Boyle also knows how to fill the spaces (few) between words and reveal the emotions of the masses of people who enter and exit the tumultuous life of Jobs. Sorkin moves the characters on a chessboard (remember Birdman), without worrying too much to check if they were really present during some of the outbursts of Jobs, but always making sure that their actions and reactions reflect a truth often hard and uncomfortable.

The actors could not be better at reciting a long duel 14 years against the man who has compared himself to Julius Caesar, an emperor surrounded by enemies. A superb Seth Rogen reveals the wounded heart of Steve "Woz" Wozniak, cofounder of Apple who can not take lightly the refusal of Jobs and his team recognize the success of the Apple II. And Jeff Daniels, actor icon Sorkin in the HBO series The Newsroom, can interpret every nuance of the personality of John Sculley, CEO of Apple, who dismisses Jobs kicking off his cruel revenge. But there is someone who can tame this fierce perfectionist? The marketing director of Polish Joanna Hoffman, comes close. Interpreted by Kate Winslet Oscar, can radiate courage and grace in equal measure, Hoffman is the only person who gives a hard time to the head. She is scolding billionaire Jobs for leaving misery in his former lover Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston) and his stubbornness in not wanting to recognize the paternity of his daughter Lisa, five years.

Sorkin has never tender with the protagonist, adopted son with the horrible tendency to keep distant loved ones. But Fassbender also makes us a glimpse of his humanity. What they do not see is the Steve Jobs older and richer, married Laurene Powell and father of three, who has created more miracles branded Apple, fought pancreatic cancer, which consumed his body and for which He died in 2011 at 56 years. The film aims to capture the man behind Steve Jobs, and tell it in three public events in which people who defined their life in relation to his came forward at the last minute to give it a sound punishment. Hard? Yes it is. But it is essential to talk about a pioneer who created products from coating immaculate and stylish to hide all the intricate circuitry inside. Steve Jobs shows us for the first time these internal circuits, never belittle the role of rebel and visionary who changed our digital life, and continues to do so today.

It’s not a total wipeout, but the omission of its presence on the awards circuit, except for two performances, is not without reason. Steve Jobs is a unique piece of cinema, but I’m not entirely sold on it being a completely successful one. There’s plenty to admire here, and just as much to find frustrating.

 

All things go back to the script. Aaron Sorkin and his obsession with the Great Flawed Man, inevitably white, affluent, and something of a raging asshole with to pontificate ad nauseam, is felt strongly here. Sorkin has his fans, but I’ve never been huge fan of his work. I find him in love with his ponderous verbosity, and find this scripts have a tendency to chase their own tails unless a strong directorial presence is found to guide them into something else.

 

Steve Jobs is not that movie. Sorkin created a film with three very clear and pronounced acts, playing less like a film and more like a filmed stage play. We check in on the same small group of characters at three different product launches, each of which finds Jobs in full-on demanding, ego-centric son-of-a-bitch mode. Orbiting him are a group of characters far more sympathetic and engaging. Why did Joanna Hoffman, who by all accounts seems a smart, capable woman with a low tolerance for bullshit, take his abuse and act as his wrangler for so long? Steve Wozniak, Andy Hertzfeld, and Crisann Brennan were frequent targets of his abusive tirades and put downs, why do they so frequently return to his side?

 

None of these questions gets satisfactory answers, but Jobs gets an unearned third-act bit of sympathetic character development. There’s no meaningful engagement with Steve Jobs, the person, and instead we witness something of myth-building around someone who maybe didn’t quite deserve as much as he’s received. Like Wozniak calls him out on, Jobs wasn’t a creator, an engineer, couldn’t write code or program anything, he was a great marketing man, though, and a solid idea-man. But a tech genius? Well, the script would have you believing that, and that he additionally wasn’t such a bad guy. After all, his frequent dick-headed attempts to skirt custody and responsibility of his oldest daughter has to do with his pent-up daddy issues, which is just lazy writing on Sorkin’s part.

 

Even stranger is how relatively calm Danny Boyle’s direction feels. Normally a film-maker of tremendous energy, perhaps too much at times, and kinetic visuals, Steve Jobs is smothered in Great Man film tropes. Boyle’s direction often feels like it’s being steamrolled by Sorkin’s words, whereas the similar The Social Network had a director wrestling with the immense verbal passages into montages and other visuals that produced some energy. There’s not enough of that in Steve Jobs. The montages to catch us up on the passages of time between the three acts feel like Boyle’s signature style, but then it goes back to glossy, smartly dressed BBC television adaptation mode.

 

Well, at least the performances sing, loudly and clearly. Leading the entire thing is Michael Fassbender. Many actors have broken under the challenge of finding the rhythms and musculature of Sorkin’s dialog, but Fassbender breaks the dialog around him. He finds the current wave to ride on, and sails through the film. It’s a laudable performance, and the film only works as much as it does because of his lead. It’s hard to imagine any of the other, and numerous, actors rumored for the role in this part now.

 

Everyone else could be argued as a supporting player, and they’re all top-notch actors. Granted, Winslet’s weird accent (supposedly Polish mixed with some other things) wanders far too much, but her various tics and exasperations feel real and lived in. Seth Rogen is solid as Steve Wozniak, a casting choice that felt like an inevitability from the moment this film was announced. Michael Stuhlbarg and Jeff Daniels turn in solid variations on characters they could probably do in their sleep by this point. While the film garnered a Supporting Actress nomination, rightly so, it was for the wrong actress. Katherine Waterston’s beat-down ex-girlfriend and mother to his ignored daughter is the standout among the supporting players. Consistently returning with less screen time but more battled-scarred poetry, Waterston is one of the few players who loudly screams for Jobs to be held accountable for his actions. Naturally, she’s nowhere to be seen during the final confrontation between father and daughter.

 

Having no interest in actually confronting its subject matter, or holding him accountable, Steve Jobs is happy to instead play him as just misunderstood. Frankly, I think Jobs, and Sorkin, should have listened when Wozniak screams out in frustration that “You can be decent and gifted at the same time.” Pity no one listened to him. Jobs, as witnessed here, was a bit of an asshole, but the film constantly sides with him. And the less said about that surprisingly happy ending, complete with an eye-roll inducing nudge and wink about the iPod the better.

Thoughts before I watched this.
1. I wasn't going to watch anything besides horror or thrillers this month.
2. To pass the time until an event I wanted to go I ended up choosing this to watch.
3. I really did want to see this either way because it looked amazing.
4. The cast here is quite intriguing from Michael Fassbender to Seth Rogen (of all people).
5. Danny Boyle has yet to steer me in the wrong direction.
6. Aaron Sorkin is an excellent writer from what I've seen in Moneyball and The Social Network.
7. This is actually based on the biography by Walter Isaacson.
8. I liked JOBS, but I know this is going to be so much better.

"His passion and ingenuity have been the driving force behind the digital age. However his drive to revolutionize technology was sacrificial. Ultimately it affected his family life and possibly his health. In this revealing film we explore the trials and triumphs of a modern day genius, the late CEO of Apple inc. Steven Paul Jobs."

Thoughts while I watched this. (No particular order)
-Like all intellectuals seem to be Steve Jobs is quite the asshole.
-5 year old Lisa is so adorable aww!
-It needs to say Hello!
-How many times are they going to say it "needs to say Hello"?
-The way the say it though is kind of catchy.
-Katherine Waterston has this approachable look to her that makes me so attracted.
-Kate Winslet with a Polish accent is yummy.
-Michael Fassbender's Steve Jobs voice is on point.
-Jobs pretty much argues with anyone with an opposing view.
-I felt John Ortiz's talents were wasted here.
-Steve Jobs seems to be one step ahead of everyone else.
- I thought it was a unique way to tell a story where we saw only the interactions through three different product launches.
- Oh I remember using those kind of Macs in school!
- I really like Michael Stuhlbarg his characters are always bullied, but he plays them so well.
- Steve Jobs cusses quite a bit lol.
- I like the real time segmented feel to the film.
- It was cool that Seth Rogen wasn't the usual goofball he is.
- I like the little references made to future items that were made by apple.
- To see how his private life intertwined with his work life was definitely intriguing.
- Every jerk has some kind of sweetness to them even if it's practically unnoticeable.
- The ending was not what I was expecting.

Thoughts after I watched this.
1. This was loads better than the Ashton Kutcher version.
2. I did like that version as well though.
3. The acting is superb even with a comedic actor like Seth Rogen taking on seriousness.
4. The style is unique and fun.
5. It hadn't been exactly what I was expecting.
6. I liked the amusing little Easter Eggs to apple products.
7. Michael Fassbender is just amazing.
8. I guarantee that this will be nominated for several Oscars and may win some.
9. So with that said I highly recommend this one.