Steve Jobs (2015)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Really bad movie. You learn nothing about the man or his methodology behind his success. It's just another fast-talking Aaron Sorkin movie where everyone knows and talks more than you ever can. The schtick gets old. It just wasn't good. It's an empty, vapid movie, glorification of a very arrogant man with a God complex.

The Social Network meets Hamlet in this biopic that limits the action to three product launches in the early history of Apple. The whole film takes place indoors, except for a climatic scene of change and redemption that moves outdoors. This is the one directorial flourish in a film limited by its locations, and Sorkin's trademark need to have characters stand around barking eloquently at each other. The acting is very good, with Seth Rogan carrying particular appeal. The directing is straitjacketed in the limited locations. Sorkin's dialogue and characterisation, so finely done in The Social Network, does not stand up here. Everyone sounds like Sorkin, which one becomes weary of after a while. A different writer bringing more nuanced characterisation and idiosyncrasy to the dialogue might have served this project better.

In 1 word, fan-tas-tic!Forget the consensus biopic of 2013. Boyle's film here, whose only (relative) defect is to be released after, is infinitely superior at all levels.Cinephiles, comedians known or not, go see it. This is a real movie of comedians. It takes place in 3 acts, each shot on 3 different media: 16 mm film, 35 mm film and digital. During the shooting, before each act the actors repeated for 1 week and then turned the act, stop, repetition and so on. Filmed in 3 different theaters, still indoors, it revolves around the two main characters (Jobs and its marketing director). Splendid work (we will say "as usual") of Fassbender and Winslet, and all the supporting roles.The film keeps us in suspense for 2 hours at the sole strength of the actors and the quality of the dialogues fairly dense. A little technical but not that much. It's not a movie about the Mac. It shows (in each of the acts) Jobs before each product launch, you know those technological masses that made Apple-addicts vibrate. Each act ends when Jobs enters the scene.It shows the story of the successes and failures of Jobs, its conflicts with its employees, its partners (Wozniak) and its bosses. And especially paternity with his daughter, he refuses to recognize at first. It is in this relationship that is difficult to weave which emerges the humanity of the film, which could have been a long blah-blah without soul. Failure avoided brilliantly because the narration is dynamic. Included in the text but without the context of the adventure Apple. The music is discreet, it is limited to regular and repetitive layers, never too present. It is only there to insinuate a subtle but effective tension when it is necessary. The characters are complex, human, diverse. Nothing manichean here.Facing film, we can draw parallels with "The Social Network" David Fincher, the story of Facebook. Shiny film too but here Boyle offers us more sensitivity to humans, to what he lives. The relationship between Jobs and her daughter is as touching as possible, because it develops despite the rough personality of Jobs, and flourishes only at the end, without artifice, without violins, without big accolades, without tears. And it's all the more moving.

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, in reference to this movie, was once quoted as saying, "(Steve Jobs) is not a photograph it's a painting."After reading the book and then recently seeing the movie, I would agree. Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs is a favorite of mine and the movie is pretty good, but no where near as detailed.The movie is not really 'Steve Jobs'; he was so much more than the asshole portrayed in the movie. Yes, true (as Isaacson's bluntly objective book confirms) Jobs was a massive jerk; a sometimes mean, vicious, sarcastic person who believed he was God's gift to computers, and a ruthless businessman. He wasn't a code-writer or an engineer. He was a visionary. He knew what we wanted before we wanted it. His mind was years ahead of technology. Kurt Cobain changed the face of music; Steve Jobs changed the face of computing forever (I don't own a single iThing) and he did it his way.Writer Sorkin did an excellent job adapting Isaacson's book for the screen, doing it in three acts that coincide with three of Jobs' biggest business 'accomplishments': The introduction of the Macintosh (1984), NeXT (1988), and the iMac (1998). (The NeXT was a disaster. A $13,000 - in today's dollars - perfectly square useless brick. But, fun-fact, the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, used a NeXTcube to run the world's first webserver!). There was so much to Jobs' life and so many more people in his life detailed in the book, that it must have been a difficult adaptation for Sorkin. However, the point was taken – Jobs was a brilliant, albeit flawed person.It's fun to watch the movie, and it's faced-paced so you won't be looking for the 'NeXT' scene button. Take it for what it is, a subjective portrait.