Read Mixed User Reviews for Jobs

5

ThegodfathersonAug 16, 2013

The decade the film skips when an ousted Jobs created his software company NeXT, which he eventually sold to Apple seems like a lost chapter that could have illuminated it subject. How does such a driven man survive after being driven out?The decade the film skips when an ousted Jobs created his software company NeXT, which he eventually sold to Apple seems like a lost chapter that could have illuminated it subject. How does such a driven man survive after being driven out? Instead, the film picks up in 1996, when Jobs inexplicably has a new wife and young son; his now college-age daughter snoozing on the living-room couch. He's lured back to Apple and transforms it into the most profitable company in the world. (That's not a spoiler, it's history you can check it on your iPhone.) And that's the problem with "Jobs." While it's interesting to see the history of Apple and how Jobs' singular determination was crucial to its success, the history of a company isn't as compelling as the history of a person, especially one as complex, innovative and influential as Steve Jobs.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

5

TVJerryAug 22, 2013

From all accounts, Steve Jobs was a brilliant innovator, but also a demanding, inconsiderate This biopic starts with his free-spirit college days, spends lots of time creating the first computer in his parents' garage, then traces his riseFrom all accounts, Steve Jobs was a brilliant innovator, but also a demanding, inconsiderate This biopic starts with his free-spirit college days, spends lots of time creating the first computer in his parents' garage, then traces his rise and fall and rise at Apple. Ashton Kutcher, who is an on-screen charmer, is out of his league in this role, unable to plumb the characters' complexities. Even though the screenplay tries to show Jobs' good and bad sides, it's just a flat, yet absorbing history lacking in emotion, drama or excitement.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

csw12Sep 22, 2013

The movie is quite entertaining and not bad overall but where it fails miserably is the decision to cast Aston Kutcher. Every moment that is suppose to be taken seriously, having feeling, or make a point comes across as cheesy. "Jobs" isThe movie is quite entertaining and not bad overall but where it fails miserably is the decision to cast Aston Kutcher. Every moment that is suppose to be taken seriously, having feeling, or make a point comes across as cheesy. "Jobs" is certainly no "Social Network".… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

Movie1997Aug 17, 2013

It ain't no "Social Network", it's a movie that lingers in some aspects. For starters I'll say that the acting is pretty good, especially Ashton Kutcher. I don't know how he did it, but he off Steve Jobs pretty good. But the big problem withIt ain't no "Social Network", it's a movie that lingers in some aspects. For starters I'll say that the acting is pretty good, especially Ashton Kutcher. I don't know how he did it, but he off Steve Jobs pretty good. But the big problem with this movie is that source material used is a bit of a mess. They exaggerate some factual source material, yet at the same time they don't show enough of other source material. Overall, it's a heart-less version of "The Social Network". Be sure to check out my YouTube channel "TheMovieManLife" for all things movies.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

AlexProductionsSep 7, 2013

"How does somebody know what they want if they haven't even seen it." This one sentence really explained to me why Apple was created. JOBS, is the biography/film recreation of Steve Jobs' (Ashton Kutcher) life. Being founder of Apple, we"How does somebody know what they want if they haven't even seen it." This one sentence really explained to me why Apple was created. JOBS, is the biography/film recreation of Steve Jobs' (Ashton Kutcher) life. Being founder of Apple, we follow him and Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), as they create the company and watch it flourish. The film starts in 2001 (picture two) as Steve introduces the first iPod, and then it jumps back to mid 70's when the company first started. Starting the company in his parent’s garage with the other Steve, we follow him through his hard work in Apple. We could tell that Steve really was a jerk after starting his company, but we also saw how he cared about his good friends and about the association.

The movie really gave me an understanding on how his life changed the world. I learned that words did not affect Steve; he never gave up with hundreds of people hanging up on his phone pitches, and in live demos. The film JOBS really showed how great of an actor Kutcher is. Throughout the film, I was convinced that he was Steve Jobs. He had got everything right even down to the walk Steve actually carried.

Being an Apple fan, I really enjoyed JOBS. I think that any viewer would enjoy the film, but I feel like the movie will only attract people who care about the history of Apple. It's more of a selective audience for this film, because there is no point in seeing it if you are not an Apple fanatic. I think Josh Gad also did a great job as Wozniak, and I still think he and Jonah Hill have the same voice.

Even in the 130 minutes the film ran, JOBS did not cover the last decade of his life when Apple really took off. Sequel, maybe? I wasn't sure if Open Road Films (which I've never heard of) had to pull the plug on the ending. After thinking about the film, my only idea is that they did not need to continue the film because we can just pull out the device in our pockets. They did not need to cover the next decade, because we already know what happens. The company expands so greatly that Steve gets his wish of changing the world with over 25% of American adults, owning iPhones.

I felt the film started to drag on, even though some scenes were rushed. For example, Steve's wife and children came into the picture at a time that didn't seem appropriate. Overall, I think Jobs really defines Steve’s life, and the start, and growth of the company everyone knows about. If you own an iDevice, or want to learn more about Steve; JOBS is the movie for you.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

Nesbitt10Nov 23, 2013

Joshua Michael Stern's "Jobs" is like an assembly line for the best moments in the career of Steve Jobs, but seriously lacking in depth, and without much significance. It is a truly unremarkable biopic of the "master of innovation" as youJoshua Michael Stern's "Jobs" is like an assembly line for the best moments in the career of Steve Jobs, but seriously lacking in depth, and without much significance. It is a truly unremarkable biopic of the "master of innovation" as you could possibly imagine. "Jobs" follows an overly safe, unimaginative course that clocks in at a tiresome 122 minutes. The storytelling is painfully straightforward, covering only the principal events of his professional trials and tribulations, and providing little else beyond what is already public knowledge.

Developing his imagination for computer programming at Atari, Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) brings in his friend Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to help with the hardware aspect, forming a partnership that would soon lead to the founding and development of Apple Computers, a force within the industry throughout the 1980s. Steve is not prepared for the financial demands and the ruthless business mentality, and is eventually forced out of the company he began, only to return in the 1990s with a fresh game plan on how to bring Apple back into the public consciousness, and to dominate the industry once again.

"Jobs" is a biopic with a very narrow focus, and without any sense of risk or adventure. It is so intent on covering Jobs' entire corporate career, that it simply reduces his personal life to a footnote. Stern completely glosses over Jobs' personal life, which is essential to any self-respecting biopic. The entire production feels rushed and slapped together simply to benefit from being the first one out of the gate.

To his credit, Kutcher puts forth a good effort, and he undeniably looks the part of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately, Ashton always looks like he is trying too hard to play the part, and never fully becomes the character he's portraying. His limitations on the big screen prove to be a major liability. He has developed a screen persona as likeable character, which has served him well with numerous TV sitcoms. Not so much with movies.

What emerges is a movie that has "a made for TV" feel, which depicts a self-absorbed creep who stabs everyone in the back to simply to get his way that goes on for two plus hours. A thoroughly unsatisfying tribute, and we are still left none the wiser as to what made "The Father of the Digital Revolution" beyond what we already know.… Expand

8 of 9 users found this helpful81

All this user's reviews

6

YeahYeahCoolAug 18, 2013

jOBS Review

Originally posted at: http://www.yeahyeahcool.com/2013/08/18/jobs-review/ by Carla Valdes @karluccia In 2011 the world lost one of the most important visionaries of our era. Two years later, from director Joshua MichaeljOBS Review

Originally posted at: http://www.yeahyeahcool.com/2013/08/18/jobs-review/

by Carla Valdes @karluccia

In 2011 the world lost one of the most important visionaries of our era. Two years later, from director Joshua Michael Stern, we have Jobs; a bio-pic that should have looked back on the extraordinary life and career of Steve Jobs, but rather focuses more on the boardroom drama of Apple Computers.

Ashton Kutcher does a fair acting attempt with a respectful performance, even taking on Jobs’ distinctive mannerisms and walking stride. Comic relief is provided in the way of Josh Gad, who portrays Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. The rest of the cast does its fair share at responding to Kutcher’s rants, looking wide eyed and fearful when needed.

I feel the problem with Jobs comes from the script, which focuses on Jobs being a neurotic, unlikeable, vindictive, angry genius and bad father, who suffers from occasional screaming fits, usually done while speeding his sports car through the rain.

Much of Steve Jobs’ personal life is randomly mentioned in the film, one moment being the emotional impact his adoption had on him which is touched upon during an LSD trip. Omitted completely is the important work Jobs held with Pixar, his development of the iPhone, his emotional search of his biological parents, how he met and married his wife, and most important his history with Bill Gates, the latter being reduced to a heated one sided phone call with Jobs screaming at the top of his lungs.

Maybe Steve Jobs wasn’t the nicest person when he was alive, but surely he deserved more than this depressing, uninspired and disappointing film.

D+… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

FranzHcriticAug 22, 2013

Ashton Kutcher may have the talent to play Steve Jobs, but the rest of the movie cuts out a few very important details of his life, while being monotonous in the process. But it is worth watching.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

JacobAug 26, 2015

Jobs tells the story of Steve Jobs but that’s it. As a film that serves to show Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) going from guy in garage building personal computers to guy in charge of Apple it works. I’m not quite familiar with the life of SteveJobs tells the story of Steve Jobs but that’s it. As a film that serves to show Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) going from guy in garage building personal computers to guy in charge of Apple it works. I’m not quite familiar with the life of Steve Jobs but the story seemed to flow alright. Making a bio-pic may not have been the best course of action for the film as its story is stretched out. Rather than focus on a specific point in Jobs life (ex. working in his garage) the film shows a broad approach. On one end, this helps to show how far Jobs has come in certain areas going from nothing to a big celebrity but at the same time it means that none of these moments can be fleshed out a lot. The film is constantly jumping around causing jobs arc from jerk to megajerk to nice guy doesn’t get fleshed out properly. The film feels long and empty because it covers so much yet there is no substance or heart to allow me to connect to Jobs’ struggle. The film fails to flesh out Jobs as a character and at times it just feels like a cheap rip-off of The Social Network where a smart genius is a jerk pushing away people while climbing the ladder of success. It feels like an Oscar wannabe at times with all the key moments guy struggling and lots of shouting clips that I’m guessing the filmmakers thought could be used when Ashton Kutcher got the nomination he never received. It’s a shame too considering how the filmmakers got a lot of actors that look like their real-life counter-parts, J.K. Simmons, and a relaxing guitar score; that isn’t enough to cut though the film needs substance and heart and this film lacks it. Hopefully the new Steve Jobs film with Micahel Fassbender will tell a more in-depth, substancial, and better take on the story.… Expand