Steve Jobs (2015) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
388 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
an abstract portrait of the man..
AlsExGal8 July 2017
... in that you can argue about almost every stroke in the painting, yet when you stand back a few feet from the work, you realize that this is a more accurate portrayal of Steve Jobs than any photograph could be.

For example, Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Steve Jobs did at any point in his adult life, sounds nothing like Steve Jobs did. Yet, by the end of the film you feel that you are looking right at the man. Why? Because every incident portrayed sounds EXACTLY like something Steve Jobs would have done or said even if the entire incident never happened.

Kate Winsett gave an Oscar worthy performance as Joanna Hoffman, Jobs' marketing expertise and confidante, if he had any confidante at all. She acts as his conscience, his anchor, yet she actually wasn't there for a third of the film. Hoffmann retired before Jobs went back to Apple. As for Seth Rogan as Steve Wosniak, what can I say. He blew me away as he stood toe to toe with Fassbender in a show down that took my breath away with its intensity, and he stole the entire scene from Fassbender, proving he is much more than just the comic relief of Judd Apatow films.

Jeff Daniels as the conventional CEO John Sculley, recruited by Jobs to deal with a most unconventional visionary in a pioneering industry, absolutely nails the part. The scene towards the middle of the film where Sculley and Jobs have it out is a work of art in itself of dialogue, editing, and acting, and the time shifting between the present and various pasts of their relationship is expertly done.

As for the plot? It takes place entirely at three product launches - the Mac in 1984, the NeXT computer in 1988, and the iMac in 1998, and the central theme is Jobs' relationship with his daughter Lisa, the paternity of whom he did not come to terms with for years. Of course, if Jobs had even one product launch like the ones in the film with everybody he's ever known approaching and reproaching him, Jobs would have had security like the secret service at every launch afterwards.

So don't approach this like a documentary, instead approach it like the art it was meant to be and I think you'll enjoy it greatly. And regardless of what others say, I think it gives the most humane portrayal of Jobs I've seen on film. Strongly recommended.
32 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Film Different: A Cool Movie - Not meant to be a documentary
calibanplayer21 October 2015
This movie is a dramatization, based on stuff that really happened, and it is a really cool movie.

No, this movie isn't meant to show history exactly as it happened. If you want to know all that read the book by Walter Isaacson. It's a great book.

The script is pure Sorkin-Porn. Rapid-fire dialogue with 2 conversations going on at the same time. If you liked The West Wing or any of Aaron Sorkin's other movies, you'll feel at home with this one.

They also get the small emotional moments right as well. Some of the best moments are between Steve and his daughter.

The directing and editing is masterful. I liked the choice to shoot on different formats for the different years and the flashback scenes punctuate the drama on screen perfectly.

All the actors do a fine job, especially Michael Stuhlbarg who plays Andy Hertzfeld.

I hope when they release this movie on blu ray they include the video of the real Steve doing these product launches as bonus features.

If you can get past the fact that this movie isn't a word for word recreation of history, you will enjoy it.
118 out of 203 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Steve Jobs
Argemaluco1 January 2016
According to technology reporters such as John Dvorak and Leo Laporte (both "old school" ones, who personally lived many of the events portrayed in this film), it seems that Steve Jobs is more fiction than reality; fortunately, it's a perfectly acted, well written and solidly directed fiction, all of which is conjugated with each other in order to compensate its curious narrative decisions. But, does it really offer us a "real" vision of the genuine Steve Jobs? Probably not; for that, there are numerous books and documentaries. What screenwriter Aaron Sorkin attempted was capturing the essence of the man and his moment in time, examining his nature through the interaction with friends, relatives and colleagues during three stressful moments. As I said, "curious narrative decisions"... but with an interesting result. The unusual structure designed by Sorkin requires an excessive chronological manipulation, suggesting the fact that all the personal and labor problems from Jobs exploited (or were solved) in the previous minutes to his famous presentations... not only once, but three times. Even Jobs himself mentions that (well, the idealized version brilliantly played by Michael Fassbender), but that doesn't excuse the forced narrative juggling of the screenplay. Fortunately, the whole cast makes an exceptional work, transcending those tricks and bringing fluid and absolutely credible performances. Besides, Steve Jobs precisely captures the ideological separation and fraternal compatibility between Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the adored patron saint of hackers who knew what people wanted... but not what they needed. That's where Jobs shined... imposing his taste and will on the consumers, even though many years went by before the economic success validated that arrogant attitude. In conclusion, I don't think Steve Jobs works as an apocryphal History lesson about the digital revolution we currently enjoy/suffer; however, I found it quite an interesting biopic, not only due to the phenomenal performances and Danny Boyle's elegant direction, but also because of its intentional rejection of the biographical clichés which almost always feel superficial and incomplete. Sometimes, the fragments of a portrait end up being more interesting than the whole picture. Nevertheless, my indifference for the Apple products remains.
51 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Portrait
AliceofX1 December 2015
I remember when back in 2013 the Jobs movie came out. Everything about the film's trailer was "do not see". Still to this day the moment when Kutcher says "we're making Apple cool again" makes me laugh. Right from the start this film looked like they were going to do it right and I was anxiously waiting for it. And even though Steve Jobs wasn't everything I thought it would be it is still a quality drama.

Yet I can also see why it was not so commercially successful. It's weird format of taking place before three computer unveilings and the film essentially consisting of conversations with limited action between them. It is by no means a biography of the man's entire life but it does paint a portrait which, like any picture, only reveals some aspects of the person.

The film has a great cast who give solid performances. Michael Fassbender creates a character whose tyrannical and devilish behaviour you want to keep watching while longing for a glimpse of the human side.

Overall Steve Jobs is a very watchable and engaging film, provided you are already into end of the year Oscar bait drama films.
63 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
iGod Or iMonster?
Sidd_The_Movie_Slayer10 October 2015
Steve Jobs is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Danny Boyle. It stars Micheal Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Michael Stuhlbarg.

Set backstage at three iconic product launches and ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac, Steve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution to paint a portrait of the man, his estranged family and staff at its epicenter.

I honestly can't start this review without saying this easily ties with my favorite movie of the year, The Gift, for quite a few reasons. Truth be told this movie has everything needed to build a classic and uses it remarkably.

Writer Aaron Sorkin has quite a few gems in his filmography which include Money Ball, Social Network and A Few Good Men. He is as versatile as he is brutal in honesty. He works wonders in this movie revealing the man behind the machine rather than the machine behind the man. Without any scenes of failure or success, Sorkin forces his audience to understand the complex and often times revolting central Character. With extremely well written confrontations between Jobs and Wozniak or Jobs and his Daughter or even Jobs and his Boss, Sorkin relentlessly demonstrates the true nature behind the tech giant. Though this movie's central family tension and the Job vs. Apple drama are enthralling, Sorkin injects just enough dry and black comedy to keep the movie from becoming an influential figure's shaming. With that being said Sorkin also understands that the enormous ego of Steve Jobs had to be exposed as a vice and plays on that brutal fact perfectly. With 4 dimensional characters, great central dramas and pitch perfect comedy, this might actually be his best work yet.

Accompanying the stellar writing was Danny Boyle's beautiful direction. Through seemingly unending shots and aggressive movements the audience genuinely feels like their in Job's presence which can be very hard to sit through at times but is ultimately rewarding experience. With visible passion from Boyle, this is one powerful ride.

To my common readers I mentioned a few weeks back that Black Mass had the greatest ensemble cast of the year, I was wrong. This movies cast never really stops acting to the point of absolute realism. To start Kate Winslet portrayal of real life Johanna Hoffman was as beautiful as it was naive. She brought the character alive in full force and truly demonstrated she is one of the best actresses working. I smell a nomination coming her way. I had referenced Jeff Daniel's acting last week in The Martian, well he completely out did himself. He was tender at times and shark-like in others. He drew the line between intelligence and decency and walks this tight rope carefully. Five year old Mekenzie Moss also offers an absolutely astounding performance, uttering few but heart wrenching words. Michael Stuhlbarg works wonder as well on a albeit smaller degree.

Now onto the two heavy hitters. A surprise to me and my theater alike, Seth Rogan gives the single best dramatic performance of his career. As Steve Wozniak, the literal opposite of Jobs, Rogan played the role with elegance and brilliance and I wouldn't even mind the Benicio snub if Rogen won the statue. The role demanded a sweet, naive, caring and ultimately explosive performance and Rogan more than delivered making the scenes of abrasion between him and Fassbender iconic.

I have been holding off that name for the entire review because Micheal Fassbender is the only thing keeping this movie from failing. He dawns the character in such a way, I can only compare it to Jake Gyllenhaal from Night Crawler and even then I don't think I could fully describe it. Filled to the brim with nuance Fassbender offers a cold, intelligent, manipulative, calculating, and over all disturbingly realistic portrayal of Steve Jobs. I really can't envision a better cast lead than him. As calm as he is diabolical, Fassbender plays this egotistical narcissist with such precision its close to horrifying to watch. Though calm through most of the movie Fassbender understands when to unleash the monster which lays in Jobs and is absolutely volcanic while doing so. Under all the deception, tyranny, and technological brilliance lays a purely adroit and masterful performance. Though Johnny Depp in Black Mass was great and Ian McClellan in Mr. Holmes was grand, neither of them embodied their characters much like Micheal Fassbender and it would be a shame and a disservice to cinema if he didn't with Best Actor. He has proved he is one of the best actors of the generation.

Steve Jobs was a privilege to see on the big screen and is so far tied with The Gift as my number one movie of the year. With Deft acting, exquisite direction, and powerful writing this movie is not far from a modern classic. Steve Jobs gets an A+.
137 out of 250 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not what i expected
mirco-174-5880323 February 2016
First of all.. I've seen Jobs with Ashton Kutcher and it wasn't that bad as everyone said and i personally think it was much more interesting than this one.

Steve Jobs was entertaining.. yes, but it was difficult to follow the plot. After watching the Movie i had no clue what Steve actually did, i mean i know some things, but i've learned nothing about his life after seeing this Movie. The only thing that this Movie brought to me was the Fact that he sucked as a Father and as a Human. Do i know why he did all this?

In the End this Movie opened a lot of questions but none of them getting answered and this is the reason why i think i didn't liked it that much.

Yes the acting was great and all, but i hope it's not just me who thinks that a Movie needs more than just good acting..

Would you like to see the invention of Apple and what Steve Jobs done for it, watch the one with Ashton Kutcher...

If you like to see a Movie about Steve Jobs personal life without any real answers to it, watch this Movie...
85 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boring, Uneventful & Slow
JaysonT29 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Steve Jobs has one of the worst movie titles in film history. Of all the names for the marketing team to come up with, this was the weakest one. If the Ashton Kutcher movie hadn't been released already, I am betting the farm this would have been named Jobs. That being said, the movie plays REALLY long- and until the ending, it's a talky bore.

Michael Fassbender plays the title role, and although he's a fine actor- Christian Bale (the original choice), should have been cast. Nonetheless Fassbender does what he can. We witness how the co-founder of Apple is during three behind-the-scenes unveiling's for his product, all before the 2000s.

When watching the movie, I was reminded of The Iron Lady with Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Both that film and this center around a famous public figure, but the movies aren't really about them or told as biopics. They are more personalized and experimental. Streep's movie is really about how a woman deals with dementia and her love for her husband. Fassbender's movie really is about how a man deals with narcissism and his love for his daughter. Both films are uneven and messy because the focus is too grounded in emotion, when the audience is more interested in their overall lives and not just these niche moments. Because of this, both movies are not that interesting to watch- but are elevated by strong performances. Streep won an Oscar for her role, and Fassbender will be nominated.

Kate Winslet, with an uneven accent, plays Steve Jobs' assistant who is the only person who can really stand up to him (well, that's a lie- since Seth Rogan and Jeff Daniels also have cat fights). I was a little annoyed with Winslet's personality, and awful hairdo. She starts getting on my nerves when she threatens to quit unless Steve can patch things up with his daughter. Any professional knows not to mix business with personal- and her job is to work for Apple, not be a therapist. Winslet is okay in her scenes, but her character is unlikable. If I were Steve Jobs, I would have fired her.

Then there's the business of Lisa- the daughter, and I guess the TRUE emotional back-story for the movie's purpose. Forget that I'm worth billions of dollars, I better run after my little girl and remind her that I plan to invent the iPod for her songs and that I remembered some dumb painting she made on the Macintosh when she was 5. The daughter is also unnerving because Steve Jobs was paying child support, and didn't love the Mother anymore. He owes nothing to his daughter if he doesn't wish to donate- but he attempts to show he cares, and she eventually folds in the parking lot (which looks just like the parking lot in the Tom Cruise movie Vanilla Sky).

Steve Jobs is talky and overtly uncinematic, so I was restless when viewing it. There is nothing happening but a lot of nerdy white people talking really fast and using big words to impress folks. Oh, sound like The Social Network all over again? Well, Aaron Sorkin wrote that too. He's not a good screenwriter- he's an elitist who has a big vocabulary. But he sucks at creating characters that are believable. Fassbender and Daniels aside, this movie is one of 2015's biggest disappointments.

81 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Steve Jobs At Different Times Of His Life
Desertman8415 September 2015
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!!!!!
62 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Perfectly written and everything goes from there
jtindahouse24 February 2016
I remember before 'The Social Network' came out people couldn't imagine how you could make an interesting screenplay out of the creation of Facebook. However they had underestimated Aaron Sorkin and soon after its release realised their mistake. The dialogue he writes and the pacing of his storytelling is second only to Christopher and Jonathan Nolan in my opinion. 'Steve Jobs' is another fine example of his talents. He tells the story in a unique way, dividing the story into three parts, and it works. Simple as that. Danny Boyle's direction is also excellent it has to be said but most of that stems from the great script he had to work with.

Michael Fassbender has been nominated for Best Actor in a Lead role at the Academy awards. He is indeed excellent. His performance is snappy and on point delivering the wonderfully written dialogue in convincing fashion. Sadly for him this is DiCaprio's year and no one is taking that award away from him. Kate WInslet has also been nominated for Best Supporting Actress. I didn't think she was overly impressive. She did her thing well enough but I was never blown away and there was no one scene that made me stand up and take notice. I don't think she's done enough to knock Alicia Vikander off her perch.

The wonderful pacing makes the two hour runtime fly by. Even if you don't have much of an interest in Steve Jobs and his story (like I don't overly) you can still enjoy it and get an insight into what the man was like. People can make up their own opinion on whether he was a good man or not. No one could deny he had his issues but they also couldn't deny there was a strong level of genius behind it all. Watch the film and make up your mind for yourself. You won't regret it.
23 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Job Partially Well Done
DareDevilKid18 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Reviewed by: Dare Devil Kid (DDK)

Rating: 3.5/5 stars

Though it'll undoubtedly have a more profound effect on those with a deeper knowledge of Apple's history or who share a fervent relationship with every product the company launches, "Steve Jobs" is nonetheless an affecting piece of cinema that boldly chooses a stark portrayal of the tech giant's late CEO without ever veering into the degradation or canonization of its eponymous subject. Set backstage at three iconic product launches and ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac, "Steve Jobs" takes us behind the scenes of Apple's digital revolution to paint an intimate portrait of its cofounder.

Aaron Sorkin's screenplay and Danny Boyle's Direction offers a Steve Jobs profile that doesn't idolize or criticize him, providing us valuable insight to the man's life and other important individuals who impacted it. But that insight feels incomplete and unrefined at various points in the film, because Sorkin's (usually impeccable) writing keeps treading into theatrical, garrulous, and, dare I say, even self-indulgent territory to metamorphose into a truly involving experience.

Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet create all the drama, intensity, conflict, and dynamism required to propel Aaron Sorkin's minimalist screenplay into grander terrain, but the film is simultaneously inspiring and frustrating, much like the individual it's based on. In particular, Fassbender's performance is a striking accomplishment of restraint merged seamlessly with command, as he portrays Jobs as a charming, amiable, and engrossing person in one scene, and a conflicted, revolting, contemptuous monster in the next. With due respect to all the other Oscar nominees this year, Fassbender deserves adulation for getting through stanzas of intricate, chatty dialogue alone. And, though, the movie never matches the caliber of its leading man's sublime performance, it's nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, inspiring and frustrating at the same time. Perhaps, more inspiring than it is frustrating, and that's still a pretty good thing.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Horrible - don't let the high ratings fool you
vincecartelli24 October 2015
If you want to see a film that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about what a selfish, obsessed, self-absorbed jerk Steve Jobs was, then watch this film. Otherwise, don't bother. That point is made in the first five minutes. And the next five minutes. And the five minutes after that. And the five minutes after that. And all the way through to the final five minutes before the end of the film. No character arc whatsoever can be had. Nothing changes from "fade in" to "fade out". The one attempt to shift the arc at the end of the movie falls flat with ambiguity. Boring as hell. I have no idea why this film has such high viewer ratings and an above-average Metascore. The only reason I've given it two stars is because the cast gave a very decent performance.
33 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Two hours of shouting, watching parents fight and never any payoff.
kuuk318 November 2015
This film consists of four 30-minutes argument montages, all set right before a press launch. Apparently, every worm in the wood comes out just before he releases something which I have a very hard time believing to be true. Then its about the shouting match Steve has with five people as he moans, complains, gets angry and solves nothing. Seriously, only one of those arguments gets a form of resolution at the end and the other four are swept under the rug. And we never see any of the press conferences. Its like watching the build up to the show but never the show itself. We didn't need to see the full thing, just something that shows us viewers who are not familiar with the person, the conclusion to the story. If you have little to no knowledge about Steve Jobs, this film will not only be confusing but also get you hating the guy for things that were not really his fault.

And it misses out a lot, his wife, children, the iphone, ipad, his illness and death. It really is just him shouting at people without context or any knowledge of the story in-between which gets him to that moment. For example, one minute he is going on stage to show the Mac, then the next scene we are backstage again with him having been fired about to present the NEXT computer. We find out through the arguing he was voted out, but we never see what caused it or the breakdown at work.

I disliked this film, and it makes Ashton Kutchers version look like a masterpiece in comparison.
26 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I hate Apple products but I love this movie.
Kesselia31 October 2015
The beautiful: This film had flavor: a hallway meeting was decorated by showing the launch of Skylab on the wall, the pouring rain outside during a board meeting was reflected on the ceiling, and narrowing the view of the media montage until it was the iconic -i-, the metaphor with the lilies… that's the spice of movies, baby! The good: The book/script. How you could summarize all that convoluted history into the span of a movie and still make it extremely entertaining just blows my mind. This one was definitely 'on the page'.

The bad: The trailer. Did they capture their target audience? I only bothered with this one because it was 'her turn to pick' (and she loves her phone *rolls eyes*.) I also thought it curious that my Apple-fan family didn't mention the movie on social media, 'they' who have worked at or around the company since its inception, went to school with Wozniak's kids and won't shut up about whatever new i-Junk is going on now. Did this movie set them off? Probably.

The ugly: The inherent problem with the theater industry. It's all about getting rear-ends into seats. Entertaining the audience is another matter entirely. This movie was extremely entertaining but would not have gotten my rear-end into the seat had someone not dragged me to it.

The bottom line: This movie was such an awesome piece of film work that I'm going to go see it again for the movie magic, not for Steve Jobs, or Apple, or i-Whatever.
25 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The worst movie of 2015!!
Atabtik15 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I have a question from Danny Boyle..why? Why? Really? What did you think when u were making this movie? Each phase of Steve Jobs's life can be a movie can talk about the Zen which creates the sense of simplicity in his mind which leads to the simplicity of the Apple products..but you didn't talk about that. The sense of liberation he pursuits when fighting with IBM..but you didn't talk about that. The hateful feelings he had with Bill Gates when stealing his ideas from him, but you didn't talk about it.The love of speed, but you didn't talk about it. I think the season 1 of Hault & Catch fire and role of Lee Pace was more like Steve Jobs than Danny Boyles' Jobs. What was Kate Winslet doing? She was portrayed as an secretary with ADD who just check the clock with Steve Jobs!!!! Where did you bring those interactions and dialogs with Lisa? Almost 60 minutes of the movie was about the dialogue between father and daughter which was fictional & wasn't so in reality and why portrait him as a cruel, egoist daddy. I would have become worst than him if the girl plays as Steve' Jobs daughter was my daughter too as she was walking on my nerves!

Anyway, I think the only thing that take me to see this movie to the end was Michael Fassbender's play which poor guy must have bear all the troubles of this movie with him.
48 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So many problems
southernman10025 October 2015
I have thoroughly have enjoyed watching many of Steve Jobs actual product launches and reading the book by Walter Isaacson .

The movie had many problems: 1) the three act play was not conducive to a good story . it made the movie focus on 2-3 minor relationships and make it the focus of the movie . Steve and his daughter , while its great they reconciled having that as the thing to focus on about Steve Jobs life is a massive mistake . Having all these ridiculous events happen during product launches were not just not believable but they didn't work .

2) fastbender as jobs - I thought he was very poorly cast and did not think for one second this guy was Steve .

3) they focused on boring relationships

I felt the premise of the idea was similar to the Facebook movie in that you have an arc such as a law case and grow the movie from that. The problem was they didn't grow a movie . zuckerberg in the fb movie , we were shed an interesting light on how fb started . showing the life of Steve Jobs by showing 4-5 boring unrealistic relationships he had in his life is not the best use of material.

In close it was boring material ( and jobs life is so interesting that it's amazing all his real material was ignored ) and bad acting .Also lots of tech jargon that felt like they were just trying to shove in a few computer words to make it believable .
40 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Whitewashing for the isheep out there.
TheOneThatYouWanted13 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Don't get me wrong, I use and like apple products but I have enough freewill to explore other phones and laptops. So I'm not hating on Apple products here. This film however, reminds me of those annoying poser hipsters who worship Steve Jobs like a god. The man was flawed, but this film does nothing but enable Apple fanboys (not Apple fans, there is a difference), by pretending there was a method to his madness when he treated his daughter like sh!t. Or how Steve Jobs demanded Apple stop giving to charities. Or him abusing his employees on a daily basis. And basically this movie covers all that stuff up. Even the Ashton Kutcher Jobs movie had the balls to sort of tell the truth. This film however is a cop out. Michael Fassbender plays an awful Steve Jobs. He has the look but his voice is totally off and distracting at times. Seth Rogen pretty much plays himself for the hundredth time, no surprise. The film is shot well enough but the story is way too fictitious. His daughter is using a cassette player in the late 90s? Is this movie seriously trying to claim the world didn't have MP3 players before the iPod came out? I could go on and go.
19 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What A Dog
hjames-9782214 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Drum roll please! Finally! A movie with Winslet, Rogen and Fassbender all in at the same time and they all pretty much kept their clothes ON! Hollywood is indeed a magical place. Three of the biggest gotta get naked for the audience and the film crew actors and they are not naked. I say "pretty much" because I actually fell asleep for a brief moment in this dog. I have may have missed some nudity.

All these actors are badly cast. Fassbender was way down on the list of actors for this roll. He comes across as a cross between a thug and a truck driver in a turtleneck. Did they really, really think hanging those dippy glasses on him would make him more believable? Winslet and Rogen were cast for name value. Hundreds of actresses would have done a better job than Winslet. At least Seth looks the part. He's fat and has a beard. Cool. I have serious reservations about the personal morality of all of these actors and their previous roles. The producers could have done better.

Is anyone else sick of Steve Jobs movies? He was no genius. He and his twin Bill gates were first class opportunists. They saw a good thing on the ground floor and got in. Both were pros at latching on the work (genius?) of others and cutting them out. When Jobs returned to Apple he had to eat crow. Apple survived because of a cash infusion from Gates.

Stop worshiping this dope. And send Fassbender packing. (Hollywood will likely give him and Oscar because the feel they "owe" it to him. What a joke.)
33 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What was is? Can understand...
sipinhoo21 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
All right, I can't understand this movie. Who was the target? Apple lovers, or haters? 90% of this movie was fiction, it is hardly real, and so random. Maybe the filmmakers read something about "sugared water", oh we should put this into. The same with Lisa, and Woz. Only the conflict, they have to appear right before the keynote, and tell the same every single time, and if we do this Jobs will appear to be and asshole. It is full with lies only for the drama (which is not a real drama, they weren't able to make it dramatic enough, they aren't brave enough for that) it was stopped all the time, and became a random stuff. Sculley proved for 10 minutes that he hadn't fired Jobs, but in the flashback, we clearly fired him. What about a Xeron conflict? Apple hadn't stole anything, just bought AND Xerox didn't need that stuff... The market analysis numbers absolute non-sense? Sell 1 million in the first Q, then almost nothing... what? At all, it wasn't real, and of the top of that, it was totally boring, and misleading...
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Painful. Misdirected. Off-track and dark version of a visionary story.
ChetXBuck22 February 2016
After reading countless negative reviews of this film about Steve Jobs, we were reluctant, but finally decided to watch on Apple TV after it received praise for acting. Yes, there are some great acting moments. But to what end? The writer and director have grabbed some of the most absurd and off-key moments of Steve Jobs life to create a dark and mythical character.

Why was the Mac great? Ignore that. Why was his push for design so important? Make that a negative. Why did he revolutionize the modern era? He was narrow and flawed.

This movie would have you believe the whole era of Apple was based on a few childhood fears and an obsession for working too much. At times, it felt like Steve Jobs was running for president and the writer and director ran the opposition campaign. Dark and negative without any window into to why he was great.

Good acting in a faux story that is focused on damaging a reputation of a visionary... this film was widely criticized and lost a lot of money... but it would have you believe Apple and Steve Jobs were the failure.

We liked the acting... to a degree. But the direction was terrible. It built up three key speeches and presentations that changed Steve Jobs and Apple and our lives. However, it never gave you a taste of what they really were about.

Even people who were Steve Jobs critics say this film overlooked his charm, visionary roles and personality.

Apple sold hundreds of millions of products based on his vision... but in the end, this film just wants you to know that he was not that happy, not a devoted father, and not very good at relationships. Change the title and our historical knowledge of Steve Jobs and you just have a boring story of a man who was flawed.

Steve Jobs was flawed, but this film is far more flawed than he was in every way. I hope someone makes a biography that shares the real story.
29 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Maybe more truthful but didn't engage me
Gordon-1129 December 2015
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.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just Fell Flat
rishona23 January 2016
The history of Steve Jobs and of Apple is a story rich with drama, colorful characters, and exciting twists and turns. And even with all of that, this movie turned out to be quite boring. It just didn't pull you in and the script failed to make me feel anything for anyone in the film. Steve's daughter Lisa seemed to be the most relatable character....but the movie wasn't supposed to be about her. Seth Rogan was woefully underutilized and written for as Woz. Jobs himself was just portrayed as an intolerable jerk and nothing else.

I would not consider myself to be in "the cult of Mac", and even so, this movie was not insightful or revealing of anything regarding Steve Jobs as a man or the Apple Computer company. I gave it four stars because it was interesting to see how some of the key players were situated during Apple's 1984-1998 run. But other than just wasn't interesting.
19 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Constantly Bashes Steve Jobs with a terrible unrealistic plot
oscar-mason-cormac15 November 2015
This entire movie bashes Steve Jobs throughout and makes it look like he is entirely useless to Apple (so why did they almost go out of business when they fired him?). It's focus on his daughter is loose and doesn't make much sense, his talks with the other characters are just two people bashing each other throughout. If you want to see people argue for 2 hours and Steve Jobs be a d!ck to everyone this is your movie. If you care about any factuality (these talks never happened, it's all made up) then this is the wrong movie to see. Thank you, Hollywood, for another sh*tty Steve Jobs movie. It makes sense this movie is doing so badly because it's just nonfactual and a terrible movie.
34 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Second part of Jobs trilogy
Cem_Topuz23 December 2015
After watching this era's angry, visionary, entrepreneur's business meetings in the movie called -part one of the saga - Jobs at 2013, this year we are facing the second part of the saga: Steve Jobs.

As we all saw how business meetings were bloody, this time we'll visit the product launch and marketing meetings section of, angry Steve.

Like part one, part two is crafted with dialogue. Non-stop conflicts of angry Steve and world.

Expect nothing more than talking people.

Mission for the crowd is to understand how brilliant angry Steve and how he shaped the things by listening the conversations and carefully tracing body language.

Next episode, we'll dwell into monolouges of angry Steve while he's unloading his sh*t. Long mind conversations happens inside of this brilliant mind, while peeling a health apple.

Waste of time, tells nothing to the audience.

How come somebody watchs -at least- Jobs and had motivation to do another, just conversation based movie about this man.

Pirates of the Silicon Valley is still best film about this specific topic, there are no competitors to it.

one last word, I could understand what's so weird or unacceptable about behaviours of a man, who creates his own company from nothing to a biggest company in the world. I mean, i know much terrible dudes, who owns literally nothing but treats his employee like they are waste of sperm because somebody told him that he's the Ceo of a company. Business in human world runs like this. You have to slap everybody in the face if you want what you want.

very terrible movie. shame on you Mr. Boyle and if your movies will be like this, please spare Trainspotting 2 from happening.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Too much Fassbender, too much Jobs--tedious--talk talk talk
alanjj12 October 2015
t's an art film. Schematic--it only shows Jobs before the introduction of three innovations: the Mac, the NeXT, and the iMac. All the conflicts in Jobs' life at each of those three pivotal times are dramatized as if revelatory conversations took place at that exact time, within the half- hour before the presentation. His conflicts come to heads: between Jobs and Scully, between Jobs and Wozniak, between Jobs and his the mother of his daughter, and between Jobs and his daughter Lisa. Jobs' conscience is a loyal assistant named Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslett).

I call it an "art film" because it is not really particularly entertaining, nor does portray Jobs' life as it really could have happened. It's a film that follows a scheme, and pushes the Jobs character forward, toward being a good human being, through each of his presentations. The film is all talk, and all Fassbender all the time. It's not designed for popular appeal.

I didn't really enjoy it, I was glad when it was over. Now I want to see how the Ashton Kutcher movie handled it, and the current documentary.

I'm not a partisan: I'm rather neutral toward Jobs--I use an iPhone and iTunes, but eschew the OS--I stick with Windows. From this objective point of view, I've got to say I think the portrayal was overly harsh, not balanced. The film uses Jobs' life to make its points about the need to be a good human. Jobs is the template--biography is not the point.
20 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
david-160-54431816 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
THERE WON'T BE ANY SPOILERS. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!! I rather the other Steve jobs movie. This wasn't a movie. it was just dialog.

If i want to see a play i go to a play. That is what this was.. I couldn't even finish watching i was so bored!!! don't waste your $$$ watching it.

The movie is just a bunch of people talking and yelling at each. Showing what a vial garbage Steve was. not acknowledging his daughter was his daughter.. what a wonderful person. worth billions not taking care of her. what a great idea for a movie.. This is not a good movie at all.. avoid at all cost
24 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed