Steve Jobs

... 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.

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.

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

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.

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.