Jobs

It must be difficult for an actor to convincingly portray a world famous person whose death only two years before means that his image is still relatively fresh in the public consciousness. It must also be pretty tough for filmmakers to portray the life of an iconic figure in the space of two hours. I give "Jobs" (PG-13, 2:02) credit for accomplishing one of those two tasks. (In addition, there was the pressure of knowing that another version of the film was being written by the highly-esteemed Aaron Sorkin.) When it comes to portraying the legend who co-founded Apple computers, Ashton Kutcher does an excellent… Jobs. The actor uses his natural resemblance to the computer genius and adds just enough of Steve Jobs' voice, mannerisms and walk to help us (mostly) forget that we're watching Ashton Kutcher, but he doesn't overdo it by trying to do a perfect impression which could have crossed over into caricature. This film represents some of Kutcher's best work to date, but not quite award worthy.

Unfortunately, the script isn't strong enough to give us the whole picture of Steve Jobs' remarkable life. As the film traces the rise, the fall, and then the beginning of the resurrection of Apple the computer brand, the focus is divided too much between the company and the man. If you know more about the life of Steve Jobs, you'll be disappointed when you realize you're not getting to see the full arc of his life. The film would have been better off calling itself "Apple", but even then, I would have found it lacking.

This film reminded me of "The Social Network", but without the same level of entertainment in its storytelling. The supporting actors, including Josh Gad as Apple's other founder, Steve Wozniak, Dermot Mulroney, as initial Apple financier and eventual CEO Mike Markkula, and Matthew Modine as John Scully, Markkula's successor as CEO, show the passion that those closest to the company have for Apple, but the film is supposedly about Steve Jobs. While the script does touch on some of Jobs' personal life, it seems much more concerned with the company that he helped start. "Jobs" may give us a measure of the man, but doesn't do the best job at telling his STORY. Doing the best job I can as a reviewer (while still doing my other… jobs), I give this one a "B".

Let's see, well it was worth seeing for me; however, I wished I had waited till is came out on television -- Because it was really a "movie of the week"... do they still have those? To say this movie was weak on facts would imply they got it ALL wrong - Yes, they made some things up doing the "hollywood thing" but they didn't even attempt half the history so they couldn't have gotten it ALL wrong! Parts of his life missing were glaring!

They glossed over years -- Heck decades at points, concentrating on Apple more than Steve Jobs in my opinion... maybe a better name would have been "Apple & jobs - Some of the Years"!

Wait for the movie to hit your TV and know you will still be missing more than half the story!

I've seen this film and the one starring Michael Fassbender, "Steve Jobs". The difference between the two is this - This film shows a great deal of Steve's' life, with a real accent on the mid to late 70s as Apple was being created. The Fassbender film only shows three specific scenes in Steve's life, but by the time the film is through, even though Fassbender does not even resemble Steve Jobs, you feel like you are looking right at him because of Fassbender's electrifying performance. In "Jobs" Kutcher may be made up to look and walk like Jobs, but I never feel like I am getting into the head of Steve Jobs.

What does this film do well? The first half of it captures the look and feel of early home computing in a totally realistic way - the kind of people who were involved, the way that they dressed, what early homemade personal computers in the 1970s looked like. What did they look like? It was like the first cars when they were called "horseless carriages" because that's what people AND the inventors understood as the old paradigm. The horse was being replaced with an engine and the rest of the car looked like carriages always had looked. So the earliest computers had switches and lights and sat in unattractive blue boxes that engineers thought were great, but the average person had no idea what to do with such a thing and didn't want one.

What did this film do poorly? I'd say Steve Wozniak is presented as a mere shadow of himself here. You never see the camaraderie or dynamic between himself and Jobs. The old Home Brew Club looked up to Wozniak, and when he presents the first "Apple" computer to them they just look bored and Woz looks scared.

Finally I come to Ashton Kutcher. Ashton Kutcher's problem is that he did one of his earliest roles so well and so long - that of mega screw up Kelso in the long running TV comedy "That 70's Show". He did it so well in fact that I ALWAYS see Kelso whenever I see Kutcher, no matter how well he is performing. In this film I kept waiting for his 70's Show girlfriend, alpha female attack dog Jackie, to come jumping out of a dark corner and start yelling at him and tell him what a screw up he is. Kutcher can't help this. I call it "Norman Bates Syndrome" - the same thing that happened to Anthony Perkins. No matter what role Anthony Perkins took after Psycho, no matter how well he did it, he was always Norman Bates. You just kept waiting for him to hit somebody over the head and start preparing the body to add to his collection of stuffed animals/people.

This is not a terrible film on Jobs. Nobody does a bad job, and it is interesting from a history of personal computing perspective. I'd say see this one for the history, and watch the Fassbender rendition in "Steve Jobs" to get a feel for the essence of the man, who will always remain somewhat of an enigma.

Ashton Kutcher isn't exactly the best actor but I don't think he was a bad choice for Steve Jobs. He literally looks like him unlike Michael Fassbender. Josh Gad was also a good choice for Steve Wozniak. I understand this film is known for its historical inaccuracies, but I was still able to watch this film regardless.

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 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 likable 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.