User Reviews (461)

Add a Review

  • 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 (2015)

    *** (out of 4)

    Excellent performances highlight this wonderfully written and masterfully directed bio of Steve Jobs (Michael Fassbender), a genius who changed the world even though he was unable to see what damage he was doing to those closest to him.

    Danny Boyle's direction is spot-on in regards to being able to bring Aaron Sorkin's words to life. As I said, on a technical level the film is a marvel and you're also going to witness one of the greatest performances of the year but at the same time there was just something that didn't sit right. I'm honestly not sure what it was but there was something here that prevented the movie from being what I'd consider great.

    I really loved Sorkin's screenplay and especially the dialogue. There's a lot of "intelligent" stuff being talked about and I liked the fact that they really didn't dumb anything down or try to make the film appeal to more mainstream crowds. I really thought the film broke down into four thirty-minute short films with each of them based around a various launch. Each launch also deals with the same thing and that's to show that Jobs really wasn't a very likable guy. Whether it was not being a good father or not being good to the mother of his child, the film doesn't hold back any punches. In fact, STEVE JOBS main goal appears to show how flawed the man was.

    The greatest thing about the film is without question the performance from Fassbender. This role was rumored to be with many different actors but Fassbender certainly makes it his own and there's not a single second where you're seeing an actor doing a performance. Even though he doesn't look like Jobs the actor certainly becomes the character and makes you believe everything you're seeing. Kate Winslet is also wonderful in her head-to-head battles with Jobs and I thought her and Fassbender were excellent playing off one another. Seth Rogan and Jeff Daniels are both good in their supporting roles as well.

    The film has a terrific, fast-paced style that director Boyle perfectly nails and I thought his directing skills were perfect for the screenplay. As I said, there's a lot of great stuff in this movie but it still fell a bit short of actually being a great movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    STEVE JOBS is an interesting look at the man behind Apple, one of the most successful businesses in history. It sheds light on Steve Jobs' character and reveals the workings of his mind through three set-piece conferences set in various eras important to Apple's history. Michael Fassbender gives a solid enough turn as the man although you can't help but feel that any actor could have done an equal job. Seth Rogen is surprisingly decent as Steve Wozniak while the great Michael Stuhlbarg steals all of his scenes as usual. Danny Boyle's direction threatens to distract at times but he keeps it restrained more often than not. Most interestingly, this is a warts-and-all biopic that shows the ruthlessness of big business in a similar way to THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE FOUNDER.
  • This biopic of Steve Jobs (Michael Fassbender) centers on three product launches; Apple Macintosh in 1984, NeXT Computer in 1988, and iMac in 1998. Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) is his ever-present right-hand man. John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) is his father figure and CEO of Apple. Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) is always vying for acknowledgment of the Apple II. Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston) is the mother of Jobs' daughter Lisa. Reporter Joel Pforzheimer follows him throughout.

    These are all very interesting performances. Fassbender, Winslet, and Daniels all deliver. Seth Rogen is surprisingly good in a non-comedic role. Waterston is terrific as the baby mama. There is no denying that Aaron Sorkin knows how to write unique dialog but it feels non-real. I believe that this would be one of the best movies of the year if it's about Stephen Jet. Sorkin has written some of the greatest work around like West Wing, Newsroom, and others. They all have a superior to reality feel. This is altered realism but I think everybody is more interested in the actual truth. There are some great scenes. There are big scenes. This is a perfect creation.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After the not very successful Ashton Kutcher movie, this is Hollywood's newest take on late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The director is Oscar winner Danny Boyle, the script comes from Oscar winner Aaron Sorkin and the cast includes Oscar nominee Michael Fassbender and Oscar winner Kate Winslet apart from Michael Stuhlbarg, Jeff Daniels and Seth Rogen. So it should not come as a surprise to anybody that this one is considered one of the big players this awards season.

    The movie runs for 2 hours roughly, but I must say that I liked the second half more than the first. This film needed quite a while to really get going. I must say that I found everything before 1998 not too interesting. And even afterward there were discrepancies, for example how Winslet's and Stuhlbarg's characters were all of a sudden so important in Jobs' daughter's life, something that came a bit out of nowhere for me. Jobs' professional struggles with Apple make for the major dramatic moments of the film while the complicated relationship with his daughter is included for the emotion. His illness is not referenced, neither is his involvement with Pixar.

    Fassbender gave a good performance and deserves an Oscar nomination. I am not so sure about the win, because a lot from his performance is also attributed to the excellent makeup work. Rogen had one great scene (his final argument with Jobs) and was solid for the rest of the film. Same goes for Stuhlbarg. Winslet had lots of screen time, but apart from how different she looked compared to her other performances these days, she wasn't memorable and should not receive any awards attention.

    All in all, this was a solid movie. Fassbender is probably the best thing about it. I frequently have difficulties with how sterile Sorkin's scripts seem and here as well I just could not really feel any of the emotion, apart from the final rooftop scene maybe. But even this one occasionally only felt included for the sake of it, not really as part of a convincing storyline. I may be a bit biased as I couldn't care less about Apple (never had one of their products) or Jobs, but I don't think this is what kept me from really loving this film. It's just too much by the books for my taste. Still, I recommend it, even if I don't think it's considerably better than Kutcher's film. And my favorite Boyle film is still "127 Hours".
  • There is a certain irony (or perhaps deliberate synergy) in terms of how this film is constructed, and the subject it delivers. The focus is Steve Jobs, and we follow him in a three-stage film mostly spent backstage ahead of various product launches. We see products which are not quite as good as they are ready to be, being launched with a lot of energy and promotion. The same could be said of the film itself, because on the content level there is perhaps not as much to connect to as it may seem at first. Sorkin does his usual thing as writer – keeping everything moving quickly and with energy so that it is easy to get caught up in the pace. The script does deliver an engaging character piece, but there is not a great deal of reason to care about it – more to be intrigued by it.

    Despite this the film does work really well for what it is. The operatic scale and pace of the film is one of the main reasons for this; it sweeps across the years and uses flashback snippets to inform to good effect. The energy from this draws the viewer into the film, but it is the performances that keeps us there. Fassbender is brutal in his depiction; very on point throughout and plays the character in line with the writing. The support is just that, but still Winslet, Daniels, Rogan, and others all provide a strong base of performances for the lead to play off against.

    It is not a perfect film by any means, but in its pace and scale it makes for an engaging and intriguing character piece.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is an odd way to do a biography and was more of a character study with flashbacks. The film is divided into three basic scenes and if you are concerned about PLOT SPOILERS don't read on, but I will be gentle. The first 35 minutes of the film is a behind the scenes look at the roll out of the MAC computer. We meet Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) his "work wife" and right arm. We also meet his daughter Lisa and her mother (Katherine Waterston) along with the major characters at Apple. The next 40 minutes is a behind the scenes look at the roll out of the Cube, and again we get more character study of Steve (Michael Fassbender) and more flashbacks...and some more of Lisa. The rest of the film jumps to 1998 and behind the scenes look at roll out of I-MAC and more of Lisa.

    If you want a biography and a film most people can easily digest the Ashton Kutcher film is superior. This film has some aspects for the technology based audience as well as those who are curious about the unusual father-daughter relationship that Jobs maintained. Steve Jobs is portrayed as an intense individual who is a perfectionist, condescending and difficult to work with. I think I said that politely.

    This film won't have universal appeal but had great performances.

    Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Of the stuff I've read about Steve Jobs, about his unrelenting drive and disagreeable personality, it seems to be captured here with a fair amount of realism. Michael Fassbender infuses the character of Jobs with a caustic persona that doesn't let up much throughout the story. The few glimpses we get into Jobs' past help the viewer understand some of what drives the passionate genius in one area of his life, and how it undermined his relationships with those closest to him on a personal level. The supporting players here were exceptional, and it was interesting to see how Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet), Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) and John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) managed to go toe to toe with the abusive computer pioneer, in many cases proving after the fact that they were right and he was wrong. Even with what little I know from a technology standpoint, it always seemed intuitive to me that Apple products were limited by their closed architecture, so I have a hard time understanding why the real Jobs refused to acknowledge it. The picture reveals some of the bullheaded stubbornness the man had along those lines, and if one can get past the personal flaws of the title character, the story offers a compelling portrait of a principled man who might have engaged in a bit of humanity along the way.
  • Steve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution, to paint a portrait of the man at its epicenter. The story unfolds backstage at three iconic product launches, ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac.

    Thismay be the most interesting way to tell the story of Steve Jobs. We see almost nothing about his life or who he was, other than what we get from his interactions with his daughter, his assistant and Steve Wozniack. Although it leaves a lot out, it is still surprisingly effective.

    And what we have is a very limited arc, from failures to success. We never get beyond 1998, so there is no iPod, iPad, iPhone or any of the things that have since made Apple a giant in the tech field. But again, this makes for some interesting storytelling.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Every techie knows who Steve Jobs was. That is, they know that he founded Apple Inc., revolutionizing computers. But most people probably don't know Steve Jobs the man. Danny Boyle's Academy Award-nominated 2015 movie "Steve Jobs" is based on Walter Isaacson's biography of the Apple founder. Jobs had authorized the bio, but Isaacson's condition was to get the final say (in that he didn't give the most flattering image of Jobs). It got published right after Jobs's death on 2011.

    The movie focuses on three major events in Jobs's life: the release of the Macintosh in 1984, the launch of NeXT in 1988, and the unveiling of the iMac in 1998. Accompanying each of these is the issue of Jobs's refusal to provide for an old flame who claims that he's the father of her daughter. In these scenes, he comes across as kind of a nasty person. It was ironic that I watched all this on a MacBook Air.

    The movie emphasizes these events and relationships; there's no depiction of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak coming up with the idea for the computer in their garage. I guess that the point is that every icon is bound to have a less-than-venerable side. But seriously, are you gonna get people in this day and age to give up their iPhones just because Steve Jobs wasn't the nicest guy?

    It was through watching this movie that I learned about most of the other people who were involved in launching the products. I'd heard of Jobs and Wozniak. Joanna Hoffman, Andy Hertzfeld, John Sculley and Andrea Cunningham were new to me. Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Michael Stuhlbarg and Jeff Daniels turned in outstanding performances, as expected. It was surprising to see Seth Rogen in a serious role for a change, since we're used to seeing him play stoners who talk about bodily functions. But he gives it his all here.

    In the end, I recommend the movie.
  • jboothmillard28 January 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    Directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours), I heard mixed opinions about this film during its release, with cinemas even stopping performances due to lack of interest, but critics did give it good reviews, I became much more interest when award nominations came rolling in. Basically this film focuses on three key events in the life of Steve Jobs (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Michael Fassbender), the information technology entrepreneur, inventor, and co-founder, chairman, and chief executive officer (CEO) of Apple Inc., the company that has created many of the world's greatest products and largest cultural ramifications, including: the iMac, iTunes, Apple Stores, the iPod, the iTunes Store, the iPhone, the App Store, and the iPad, and Jobs funded The Graphics Group, now known all over the world as animation studio Pixar. The first event is the 1984 unveiling of the Macintosh 128k, Apple co-founder Jobs demands engineer Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg) fix the failure of the machine's demo voice, threatening public humiliation in the presentation. Meanwhile he has an argument with marketing executive Joanna Hoffman (BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Kate Winslet) about the Time magazine article exposing his dispute with ex-girlfriend Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston) about the paternity of her five-year- old daughter Lisa (Makenzie Moss), Jobs denies he is the father. Chrisann shows up with Lisa, she confronts Jobs about his denial and his refusal to support her despite his wealth, Jobs and Lisa bond when he lets her use a computer and she creates a MacPaint artwork, and he agrees to provide more money and buy her a house. Jobs feels it is unwise to mention an ageing computer when Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) asks him to acknowledge the Apple II team in the presentation, and Jobs and Apple CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) discuss Job's life as an adoptive child, he admits being given up gave him feelings of powerlessness and now gives him a need for control. The second event is the 1988 launch of the NeXT computer, at the War Memorial Opera House, the Macintosh failed and NeXt is the new company founded by Jobs, his relationship with Brennan is still strained, he accuses her of irresponsible behaviour and using now nine-year-old Lisa (Ripley Sobo) to get money from him, but he is able to spend time with Lisa. Wozniak arrives and predicts the NeXt will be another failure, Jobs confronts him about his public criticism of him, and Wozniak questions how Jobs has contributed to computing history, Jobs refers to himself as a conductor, directing "musicians", like Wozniak. Sculley demands to know why Jobs was fired from Apple, actually he was forced out by the Apple board after, despite Sculley's warnings, he continued to defend the Macintosh, after its discontinuation, and Hoffman realises that the reason behind the unclear direction of NeXt, the computer has been designed by Jobs to entice Apple into buying his company and reinstating him. The third event is the 1998 unveiling of the iMac G3, at Davies Symphony Hall, Apple have fired Sculley, purchased NeXT, and Jobs is now CEO, Hoffman has projected strong commercial forecasts and Jobs is delighted. However Jobs is furious when now nineteen-year- old Lisa (Perla Haney-Jardine) has allowed her mother Chrisann to sell the house he bought for them, Hoffman reminds Jobs he threatened to withhold Lisa's college tuition, and he stunned when Hertzfeld admits he paid the tuition and suggested she attend therapy. Wozniak shows up again and asks Jobs to credit the Apple II team during his presentation, he again refuses, Sculley secretly turns also and they make amends, Hoffman urges Jobs to apologise for his mistakes to Lisa, he does so and says he is "poorly made", he gives his daughter a printed copy of the MacPaint artwork she created in 1984, and Lisa watches her father take to the stage to introduce the iMac to the world. Also starring Sarah Snook as Andrea Cunningham, Adam Shapiro as Avie Tevanian, John Ortiz as Joel Pforzheimer, Stan Roth as George Coates and John Steen as Mike Markkula. Fassbender only just looks a bit like Jobs, it doesn't matter, he is terrific playing the demanding, single-minded perfectionist, Winslet gets many equally great moments as the attentive marketing executive who has all the numbers and wants to help Jobs stick to schedule, but also sort himself out, there is also good support from Rogen and Daniels. This is an unusual biopic, normally you would focus on many of the key moments in a real person's career and personal life, but on the other hand this makes use of a very well written script, shifting away from the noteworthy achievements of the famous man, and seeing situations unfolding in real time, it is an interesting biographical drama. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Adapted Screenplay for Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing, The Social Network), and it won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay, and it was nominated for Best Original Score for Daniel Pemberton. Very good!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I found this on DVD from my local library. Good movie, does not follow a typical "biographical sketch" technique.

    This is the latest in a series of movies about Steve Jobs, in the years following his death in 2011 at the age of 56. During the 1980s when he and his company, Apple, were making their big splash in the computer industry I was working for a large company and using PCs so only had a peripheral idea of what was going on. I know a lot more about Jobs now than I did when he was alive.

    The filmmaker is Danny Boyle and in the extras explains that he set out to make a movie quite different from the prior movies on Steve Jobs and his life. The script writer interviewed many people still alive who knew Jobs and identified what he termed five significant conflicts in Job's life and incorporated those in the story. One of them was his daughter Lisa, he had denied paternity for many years before finally reconciling with her. As depicted in this movie she went to Harvard and now has a successful career in journalism.

    So overall the story here is factual but told in a non-linear manner. Most or all the events really took place, in some form, but didn't necessarily take place the way they are depicted here.

    Michael Fassbender is super good as Steve Jobs and Kate Winslet is super good as his long-time confidant Joanna Hoffman. It is stated that she so wanted the role she had herself made up to look just like the real person as her form of auditioning for the role. I don't always like Seth Rogen but here he is good as Steve Wozniak. And of course old reliable s Jeff Daniels is good as John Sculley.

    Good movie of a very complex character, Steve Jobs.
  • blanche-222 February 2016
    Steve Jobs, starring Michael Fassbender, is the partial story of Apple Computers and the man behind it for much of the time: Steve Jobs.

    Jobs is a control freak, quite possibly afflicted with Asperger's. In the movie this is all traced back to the fact that his biological mother gave him up for adoption.

    Many people have a love/hate relationship with him, especially some of the other people at Apple: Steve Wozniak, John Scully, and Joanna Hoffman.

    Jobs wasn't interested in people adapting his inventions, so what he invented was something that couldn't be used with anything else. He wasn't interested in what people wanted, he was interested in his vision.

    He denies that his daughter Lisa is his and allows her and her mother to live on welfare and Lisa to sleep in a parka because her mother can't afford heat. Eventually some of this is resolved.

    The film shows us the day he launched three products: 1984, the Macintosh computer, 1988 for the NeXT computer, after he was ousted from Apple, and in 1998 for the iMAC computer.

    Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) sees Jobs as the broad picture man, while he is the nuts and bolts. The two are often at odds, and Wozniak doesn't feel that Steve respects him. Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) is his head of marketing. She's not afraid to tell him off. Lastly, John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) who is interested basically in what the Board and shareholders want.

    The main problem that I had with this film is that they never shut up I love a lot of dialogue in films, I'm from the old school, but the script just wasn't witty enough in my mind to support all the tech talk, the arguing, the yelling that went on.

    The other problem I had was that Jobs is so unlikable one can't connect with him. You don't get to be Steve Jobs by being Mr. Nice Guy but on the other hand, do you have to be so awful to people? I can appreciate his brilliance, his vision, both of which we've seen play out over the years in incredible products, but he was pretty rotten.

    Michael Fassbender is terrific as Jobs - self-absorbed, vain, arrogant, smart, and stubborn. It took me a while to realize I was looking at Kate Winslet as Joanna - she was terrific, creating a very in-depth character who had a complicated relationship with Jobs but is able to strike a chord with him regarding his family. Seth Rogen is perfect as Wozniak, a real geek, sweet, and exploding when needed. Jeff Daniels, a favorite of the writer, Aaron Sorkin's, is a shark sometimes and then other times a real friend.

    I like both the work of Aaron Sorkin and Danny Boyle, the director, a lot of the time and then other times, I don't. I feel as if Sorkin sometimes does too much with scenes of people speaking over one another to the point of confusion, and Boyle - well, he can be totally off the wall. I'd put this one in the middle for both of them.

    Great ensemble acting, a powerful story that could have been much more powerful with maybe a slightly different or opened up focus. But with such an unpleasant person, it probably wasn't worth it.
  • The above line, which is the character Steve Jobs' (Fassbender) explanation for why the Macintosh computer at the unveiling in 1984, is his reasoning, and it's the first time we see him in the movie and his super-demanding-behind-the-scenes self. He has to have the computer say "Hello" to the audience that will assemble and see his prized innovation (which he didn't all innovate by the way, but neither here nor there, at least to Jobs), and it has to break down how people have been shown computer systems in Hollywood movies. His marketing manager cum surrogate mother, Joanna Hoffman (Winslet) remarks, "The computer in 2001 said hello, too. It scared the s*** out of me." There's another moment, a key one in a big, meaty exchange (what else does Sorkin love doing more) between Jobs and Wozniak in the auditorium in front of everybody, where Wozniak mentions that his products are better than the man who made them. Jobs agrees. Who is this a-hole? Our hero? Sort of, I guess.

    Aaron Sorkin once again gives us a guy who is a super-driven, I'll-do-it-MY-way-if-I-have-to self-professed genius, and perhaps it's hard to not think of Sorkin's script for The Social Network with his version of Mark Zuckerberg (whether he really is or not I leave up to you dear reader). I could make a very long blog post showing the differences, but I think it comes down to something more elemental: Social Network is about friendship, or what would-be friendship is and as it breaks down (or wasn't there to start), and Steve Jobs is about marriages. Jobs's marriage to Joanna Hoffman, Jobs' marriage to Steve Wozniak, Jobs' marriage to Sculley, and even his sort of marriage to Any Herzfeld. But what about the woman who birthed his daughter ("She's not my daughter", one of the major conflicts of the film), or being a father to his daughter? And like marriages - till death do us part sort of thing - the same arguments and same old BS gets pulled up over and over again, even as technology changes and people age and move on to other companies.

    So we get three time frames here, which is clever until it becomes a little contrived. That sounds contradictory, but what I mean to say is that on the one hand, Sorkin and director Danny Boyle get to show something that a lot of biopics don't bother with when they go for the 'rise and fall' scenario - Jobs starts out at a point that is remarkable in 1984, about to launch the Macintosh computer, but with people all around him trying to get him to be... decent, to do the right things, to not keep doing s***y things (the Time magazine article, the Dylan lyrics signifying something, the mention for the Apple 2 people, the threat to Andy on the voice), and we see Steve interacting with everybody in the format that is what it is, a Backstage Melodrama. And yet we see the same arguments basically take place in 1988 and 1998. It IS the 'hard' parts of business/creative/personal "marriages". In short, this may or may not sound appealing.

    I feel like I may need to see the movie again for certain little things; I'm still not fully sold that the ending (or at least the final five/ten minutes, his resolution with Sculley and Lisa) don't dip more than a bit into making this character sympathetic - and I don't mean that as a bad thing, but that it feels shallow in a certain way, as in 'we've spent all this time telling you this guy's a d***, many times over, but... maybe he's deep down a really good guy.' On the other hand, it may not be that clear, and as I think on the movie there's ambiguity to certain moments and scenes, and that's what sticks with me and makes me interested to see it again.

    There's one little scene, where Jobs is talking to himself, softly, and repeating technical details on the iMac. Is he talking to himself to rehearse the lines - the actor as well as the "player of the Orchestra" as he puts it to Wozniak as what he *does*, which is still slightly vague by film's end aside from the aesthetic side - or is he genuinely concerned to get the tech stuff right, a nerd underneath the sleek exterior? Sorkin, I should mention again, loves gigantic, monumental confrontation scenes the way Ninja Turtles loves pizza; there are more than a few in this film, and a couple of them (Jobs and Sculley in 1988, Jobs and Wozniak in 1998) are the kind that become borderline too much to watch - the cutting back and forth in time is what makes it jarring in a good way, making the psychology and points of view distinct and interesting - but it's almost like Sorkin can't help himself, no restraint in the slightest. Nevertheless, Boyle and the producers got such a top shelf cast that even if this stuff was theatrical-grandstanding I'd be riveted. Fassbender, Winslet, Daniels, Waterston, and for sure Rogen (he's proved himself dramatically before, in Take This Waltz, and here he does it again) all pull off performances that make these words come alive and, really, human all around.

    What I mean by that last thing is that, it's one thing to read Sorkin's words - he writes what he does, and you'll know it by know from Social Network or his TV shows - but what Fassbender does here is incredible. If there's sympathy that Jobs gets, it's not so much in the writing as it is through just him, finding that pulse beneath the cold 'genius'. And Winslet's Joanna as the 'conscience' is spectacular, and often because she's just the one trying to keep things moving/together. Jobs needs that - how else will he give any kind of 'face' ala the computer screen?
  • edwagreen28 September 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    I was extremely disappointed with the film despite the fine acting of Michael Fassbender, in the title role and Kate Winslet, as his marketing expert. At the beginning, I thought Winslet was Meryl Streep with horned-rim glasses and a get up in the style of Bette Davis's beginning in "Now, Voyager." Notice how pretty Winslet looked as the film went on.

    The film depicted Jobs as a real hustler, tough, but brilliant and not ready to compromise on his views or on his product.

    Jeff Daniels was convincing in a supporting role as the fired CEO of Apple.

    The film details Jobs finally admitting that he fathered a girl and his later stormy relationship with her as the 19 year old intellectual from Harvard.
  • This film tells the story of Steve Jobs developing products for Apple Computers, then his subsequent venture outside Apple then back again as the Apple CEO.

    This version of the Steve Jobs rise and fall story may be more truthful than the other film "Jobs", but it does not engage me because I find it full of negative energy. People are bickering all the time, with lots of fights and nasty comments are thrown at each other. Steve is portrayed to be an utterly horrible person, yet there are occasional scenes that are discordant, creating a lack of continuity with the character's personality. The ending seems like a desperate attempt to put some positivity back in, but it just doesn't work for me.
  • I knew pretty much nothing about Steve Jobs going into this film but with the calibre of people involved I thought it was worth a look.

    I was not disappointed. Aaron Sorkin proves yet again why he has no need to return to TV again with a smart, complex and yet witty script that manages to sustain the film's running length when really it's a film about three product launches.

    It's not everybody's sort of film, and if you didn't like 'The Social Network' (Sorkin's other film about a tech founder) then it's unlikely there'll be much here to change your mind.

    However this is a well crafted, entertaining film that is well worth watching and deserving of awards.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After watching the lackluster Ashton Kutcher film "Jobs" two years ago,my earnest hope was that there is will be a better film released sometime in the future.With director David Boyle,screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and a cast led by Michael Fassbender working together on a film based on the Walter Isaacson's authorized biography on the late Apple CEO,will "Steve Jobs" be answer?

    The film consists of something similar to a three-act play wherein we get to see the life of Steve Jobs during the unveiling of a new product at three different times of his life.The first act consists of having Jobs working for Apple as a member of an Macintosh R and D group and whose company is about to release the new computer called Macintosh in 1984.The second act consists of having Jobs,who was fired from Apple, now working in his new company called NeXT Computers,which is about to unveil the new computer called "Cube" in 1988.The final act consists of Jobs now again back at Apple working as the CEO and whose company is to release a new computer called iMac in 1998.

    In these three parts of the film,we get to witness Jobs in three different times of his life from being an company founder of the flourishing Apple Computer Company during the release of the Macintosh in 1984;a fired Apple employee who just started a new lackluster NeXT company during the release of the Cube in 1988; and finally a leader of a resurging Apple company during the release of the iMac in 1998.At the center of these events is Jobs and how he has found success early in his life;get humbled after getting fired from his company by the board and start a new company that had limited success; and get hired back to his company and help it get back from state of being close to bankruptcy into becoming the most successful company in the world.At the center of it all is his relationship with his daughter Lisa whom he first refused to acknowledge when he had early success in life;later reconnected with her during the humbling moments of his life; and finally formed a father-and-daughter relationship when he found a renewed success when he got back to his former company.

    As for fans and haters alike of the late Apple CEO,Fassbender provides us a marvelous portrayal of a Steve Jobs being both an innovator and a monster alike.We get to witness him as someone that is extremely difficult to get along with due to being an extremely arrogant egomaniac but at the same time whose thinking and ideas for innovation and marketing has led the computer industry into greater heights.Apparently,Steve Wozniak,who acted as consultant to the film,will definitely be more satisfied as it presents a horrible Steve Jobs and it provides appreciation to the engineers and technicians who worked behind the scenes for the release of the successful products of Apple.

    The film consists of lots of dialogues between characters that is why listening essential to fully appreciate it.In fact,I would not be surprised if "Steve Jobs" will become a theatrical play someday.Finally,going back to my question: Was this a better biopic compared to the one released two years ago? Absolutely!!!!!
  • bevo-1367831 March 2020
    One of my favourite movies about computers and operating systems
  • A few years ago I watched Danny Boyle's 127 HOURS and lamented that we are still to see Boyle's great masterwork . Credit to Boyle being interested in a story that wasn't very cinematic featuring a man trapped in one location which would make a great documentary of true life survival on the Discovery channel but doesn't lend itself to great cinema . With a biopic on Steve Jobs Boyle has his work cut out with this one especially since the narrative limits itself to three corporate launches and there's no way a director can use the language of cinema to tell a cinematic story if the foundations aren't there

    To be fair Boyle does his very best to try and bring something to the table . He is one of the great technicians of cinema . The editing is fine as is the cinematography and he brings a few flourishes such as captions on walls . He also along with screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and actor Michael Fassbender bring a bit of character development to Steve Jobs . The central protagonist of 1984 is something of a rat who doesn't care about his ex-partner and the child they possibly had together and doesn't care about anyone except himself . By the time the end credits roll Jobs is if not likable then merely less unlikable

    Many people have commentated that the concept probably belongs on a theater stage rather than a cinema screen and I'm inclined to agree . It's also difficult to empathise with a protagonist/antagonist whose function is to market products of corporate capitailism but since my favourite product I have is my I-pod I shouldn't really criticise too much
  • Aaron Sorkin's Script propels this Slice of Steve Job's Life and Delivers it in a Three Act (or three launch) Template that is so full of Energy and Wit that the Two Hour Running Time proceeds in what seems like a Heartbeat.

    Danny Boyle's Direction is Smooth and Seamless and never Intrudes and Embraces the Story with a Subtle Style and a Standoffish package, penetrating the Mind of Steve Jobs and shows the way He Orchestrated the Talent around Him and pushed them to the Limit.

    Michael Fassbender gives a Near Perfect Portrayal and is an Intense, always Self-Reflective Jobs, whose Genius seems to be "The Big Picture" as Wozniak (Seth Rogan) explains in one of the many and Enthralling Exchanges between Jobs and His close Associates.

    The rest of the Cast, including an Important Role for Kate Winslet as Job's "Work Wife" add what was Needed to make this one of the most Remarkable and Razor Sharp Movies of the Year. It never Intends to be Conclusive or Complete, just Fantastic Adult Entertainment Shining a Spotlight on an Important and influential Man.

    Steve Jobs' Impact on the World and the Tilting of its Axis has Yet to be Fully Understood, but it is Partially Understood and that's what this Film is...a Partial Understanding of a "Rock Star" in the Computer World. Along with Bill Gates, Jobs is in the Category of a "Beatles" or a "Dylan". Phantasmagorical but Flawed.
  • The career and personal life of Apple founder Steve Jobs, told through three important product launch presentations from 1984, 88 and 98. We see how he got there, the ingenuity behind the products, what makes Jobs tick, the personal issues he was facing at the time and how he dealt with them.

    This could easily have turned into a dry, linear biopic. The first Steve Jobs movie, Jobs (2013), was just that. Edifying but not overly interesting and quite unengaging. Certainly not helped by having a B-grade comedy actor (Ashton Kutcher) in the lead role.

    However, this Steve Jobs movie is far from dry. It is highly engaging, through showing us the man behind the brand, warts and all. Michael Fassbender does a superb job in the lead role, mixing cold business acumen with vulnerability, empathy and warmth.

    A very dialogue-filled movie, feeling much like a play, and this helps. The dialogue drives the plot and the character depth, and provides some good humour too.

    On the negative side, the relationship and issues with his daughter feel a bit overwrought and overstated at times, but this is not a major issue.

    In addition to Fassbender's superb performance, an excellent supporting performance too from Kate Winslet as Joanna Hoffman. Both Fassbender and Winslet received Oscar nominations. Good support too from Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlbarg and, very surprisingly, Seth Rogen. Rogen, more at home delivering comedy performances, is excellent here in a dramatic role, playing Steve Wozniak.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    . . . the current film STEVE JOBS makes crystal clear. STEVE JOBS is a wonderfully cast and acted movie, with witty writing, sharp editing, and great cinematography (particularly the close-up of Jobs' face as Andy lingers in the blurry background about 1:29:30 into this story). The plotting and editing of STEVE JOBS cuts to the chase incisively, boiling down the 14-year period from 1984 (and Apple's prophetic "MacIntosh" Super Bowl ad, forecasting how billions of iJobs ditto heads world-wide would morph into the Nazi sheep in the seats and NOT the sledge hammer-throwing chick!) to three key days, with a sprinkling of flashbacks and a generous use of composite characters. Coupled with THE SOCIAL NETWORK's documenting the Life and Crimes of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, JOBS shows that you do NOT need the fake villains of WALL STREET's Gordon "Greed is Good" Gecko or GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS' Kevin Spacey to prove that most if not all of America's One Per Cent mogul class are in league with the Devil. While flicks such as STEVE JOBS and SOCIAL NETWORK may feature "feel good" endings to put butts into theater seats, one cannot ignore the human carnage projected on-screen wreaked by the Zuckerbergs, Jobs, and Trumps plaguing today's America. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) tells Jobs "It's not binary--you can be decent and talented at the same time." Though that's probably True, what actually IS binary is that you CANNOT be both decent AND an American mogul. Some guys decide to become serial killers. Others kill the dreams of hundreds or thousands of 99-Per-Centers to become fabulously wealthy One Per Center fat cats such as Jobs, Zuckerberg, or Trump.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    STEVE JOBS (2015) ***1/2 Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Micahel Stuhlbarg, Katehrine Waterston, Perla Haney-Jardine, Ripley Sobo, Makenzie Moss, Sarah Snook, John Ortiz, Adam Shapiro. Fassbender's impeccable performance as computer genius Steve Jobs is the standout of this interesting take on the atypical biopic about celebrity, fame and the pitfalls of being an innovator in this warts-and-all take on the founder of Mac with a blue chip cast and finely tuned direction by Danny Boyle. The real star is the rat-a-tat-tat screenplay by Aaron Sorkin whose words leap from the script in verbal foreplay between Jobs and cronies with accuracy and stringent wit. While Jobs' cipher-like near Aspergean existence is peeled to reveal subtle layers of being a human instead of an A type a-hole and bully who barely can recognize his faults and lack of emotion (or just the opposite) with his colleagues and estranged at-arms-length domestic life. Based on Walter Isaacson's book.
  • A crackerjack screenplay by Aaron Sorkin and good performances by a talented cast led by Michael Fassbender are the biggest assets of "Steve Jobs."

    Danny Boyle, one of my least favorite directors, shows an unusual amount of restraint in telling this biographical story about Steve Jobs' firing and subsequent return to Apple. The film is not a standard biopic, for which I was eternally grateful. This is not the life story of Jobs, but rather selected episodes from his meteoric rise, fall, and rise again set against the backdrop of various product launches. The film isn't based on a play, but it wouldn't have surprised me if it had been. It takes place in few locations, most of them cramped interiors, and consists of verbal showdown after showdown, usually involving no more than two or three people. Indeed, the film does teeter on the brink of monotony at times -- the viewer feels like he's hearing the same argument for the third and fourth time by the film's end. But Sorkin's rapid fire, witty dialogue makes up adequately for any dramatic inertness in the screenplay, and the witty one-liners fly with the abandon of a screwball comedy, making the viewer pay attention if he wants to hear all the jokes. Sorkin reminds me of a modern-day Paddy Chayefsky. When Beatrice Straight accepted her Oscar for "Network," she thanked Chayefsky for writing thoughts that people always feel but can never articulate (I'm paraphrasing). That's what Sorkin does. He has his characters say the things you would want to be able to say if you were in the same situation.

    Fassbender was justly Oscar-nominated for his performance, and now that I've actually seen all of the nominees in that category for that year, I think he should have won. Winslet also received her seventh nomination for playing Jobs' marketing director and his girl Friday.

    Boyle resists the urge to direct the film to within an inch of its life, his predominant directorial style, and instead sits back and lets the screenplay and his actors do the heavy lifting. A wise decision.

    Grade: A-
An error has occured. Please try again.