RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

virek213 Genius is often a tough thing to define; and for the person that is frequently defined as a genius, it can lead to a feeling of invincibility, a feeling that you know more than anyone else, inherent insecurity, and indifference. A fair amount of that was very true of Steve Jobs, the co-founder, with Steve Wozniak, in 1976 of Apple, which over the ensuing two decades of turmoil and enormous growth became one of the biggest technological corporations on the planet. His death from a pancreatic tumor in the fall of 2011 at the shockingly early age of 56 led to a stream of films, documentary and feature alike. One of those was the 2015 opus STEVE JOBS.Based on Walter Isaacson's hugely successful biography that included a lot of interviews with the man, STEVE JOBS stars Michael Fassbender as the "resident genius" of the explosive Silicon Valley technological scene of the 1980s always busy dreaming up new technological marvels, and parsing off blame on others when things don't go according to his own version of Hoyle. Indeed, his reactions to his former colleagues, like Wozniak (Seth Rogan) and former Pepsi chairman John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), and even his own marketing executive Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet), are ones of almost intolerable cruelty, including Daniels having axed Fassbender from Apple, and Rogan pointing out in graphic detail how much he, and not Fassbender, created the computers and operating systems that made Apple a technological giant in the first place. And then flesh-and-blood reality in the form of a former girlfriend of his (Katherine Waterston) and her daughter, intrude; and he Fassbender is eventually forced to confront the failures in his rise to the top that were caused by his cold obsession with "changing the world".Fassbender does not have an easy job in his portrayal of Jobs, largely because he has to get into the skin of the techno-genius, and that skin is clearly crawling with ego. Truth be told, Fassbender's portrayal really comes across as one of the bigger egomaniacal bastards seen on screen in recent times. This probably has a lot with the real Jobs having been so candid about himself with Isaacson in the book prior to his passing, though such a character, in what passes for today's Hollywood, can be seen as rather repellent. But that would seem to be what Steve Jobs himself was often like, especially during those times that the film focuses on, the roll-outs of new products of Jobs' own skewed creative mind that happened in 1984, 1988, and 1998. It also doesn't hurt that the direction of Danny Boyle (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE; 28 DAYS LATER; 127 HOURS), and the screenplay adaptation of Isaacson's book by Aaron Sorkin (A FEW GOOD MEN; THE SOCIAL NETWORK) have both a marvelous technological sheen and a scathingly sardonic edge (peppered with a fair amount of profane bits of dialogue) to it.Nevertheless, despite (or maybe because of) the realistic, if frequently unsympathetic, portrayal of Jobs by Fassbender, along with Winslet's, Daniels', and Rogan's performances, the film is a very direct look at how being a "genius" with an outsized ego to match can do funny things to those who have both. STEVE JOBS, as such, is worthy of a '9' rating from me.

TheLittleSongbird 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

e-96997 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.

Leofwine_draca 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.