Steve Jobs

biography

45

This entire movie bashes Steve Jobs throughout and makes it look like he is entirely useless to Apple (so why did they almost go out of business when they fired him?). It's focus on his daughter is loose and doesn't make much sense, his talks with the other characters are just two people bashing each other throughout. If you want to see people argue for 2 hours and Steve Jobs be a d!ck to everyone this is your movie. If you care about any factuality (these talks never happened, it's all made up) then this is the wrong movie to see. Thank you, Hollywood, for another sh*tty Steve Jobs movie. It makes sense this movie is doing so badly because it's just nonfactual and a terrible movie.

source: Steve Jobs

This film is nothing about Steve Jobs, Chairman of Appple Computer, as 99% of the public knew him. Imagine casting Pee-Wee Herman as Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather and you can get a sense of how badly cast Michael Fassbender was as Steve Jobs. Imagine showing just a glimpse of the newest Apple products on a stage in a packed auditorium of enthralled spectators without telling how Steve and Apple created them. Omitted is Steve Jobs' uncanny ability to create, drive for perfection, and his effective "reality distortion field" management methods (borrowed Star Trek). Imagine focusing a film about this brilliant and highly admired inventor on his rationale for refusing child support, when he's a millionaire, to his first wife instead of on the unique story of his extreme passion for building revolutionary products and his influential and antagonistic management tactics pushing his staff to achieve beyond their own expectations for greatness. Who cares about his personal life? How did he invent such great products? How did he motivate his employees and negotiate with companies to revolutionize multiple industries? How was he so innovative when other companies simply copied each other? How was the new Macintosh so ground-breaking for 1984 that no one knew how to write software for it? The subsequent low sales from lack of Mac applications and Steve's rebellious personality led to infighting at Apple and Jobs' firing. How was this so integral to Steve's success? These are questions I've asked myself since 1980 when I first learned of Apple Computer. Danny Boyle could not have done a worse job if he had planned to, which does not do Steve Jobs nor Apple justice. Steve Jobs revolutionized the personal computer industry with the Apple II in 1977 and Macintosh in 1984, the music industry with iTunes and iPod in 2001, the telecommunications industry with the iPhone in 2007, the mobile computing and book industries with the iPad in 2010. Steve invented the desktop publishing industry with the Macintosh computer and new Laserwriter printer in 1985. He transformed the animated film industry with Pixar in 1995, when Toy Story was released. He married art and technology in ways no other person or company in history has done. He made technology accessible to everyday consumers through state-of-the-art electronics, remarkable forethought of market potential and simplicity of design. He brought Apple Computer, the company he founded and was famously fired from, back from the brink of bankruptcy to be the world leader in consumer electronics and one of the largest companies in the world. Apple's innovation was many years ahead of the leaders of the industries it expanded into. Through imagination and sheer will Steve influenced the entire telephone industry to change, the animated film industry to change, and the publishing of books to change. No one has had a more diverse impact on so many industries since Thomas Edison, who to this day still holds the record for most individual patents for inventions. But Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin chose to ignore this since they believe the public is more interested in the soap opera drama of Steve Jobs private family life. Sorkin obviously fails to comprehend Walter Isaacson's biography on Steve Jobs. He obviously never saw one videotaped interview with him and he certainly never read a single magazine article about him. What terrible film preparation for a biography on such a remarkable inventor.

t's an art film. Schematic--it only shows Jobs before the introduction of three innovations: the Mac, the NeXT, and the iMac. All the conflicts in Jobs' life at each of those three pivotal times are dramatized as if revelatory conversations took place at that exact time, within the half- hour before the presentation. His conflicts come to heads: between Jobs and Scully, between Jobs and Wozniak, between Jobs and his the mother of his daughter, and between Jobs and his daughter Lisa. Jobs' conscience is a loyal assistant named Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslett). I call it an "art film" because it is not really particularly entertaining, nor does portray Jobs' life as it really could have happened. It's a film that follows a scheme, and pushes the Jobs character forward, toward being a good human being, through each of his presentations. The film is all talk, and all Fassbender all the time. It's not designed for popular appeal. I didn't really enjoy it, I was glad when it was over. Now I want to see how the Ashton Kutcher movie handled it, and the current documentary. I'm not a partisan: I'm rather neutral toward Jobs--I use an iPhone and iTunes, but eschew the OS--I stick with Windows. From this objective point of view, I've got to say I think the portrayal was overly harsh, not balanced. The film uses Jobs' life to make its points about the need to be a good human. Jobs is the template--biography is not the point.

Having loved and admired this man growing up, this was one film we where looking forward too. Knowing this was based on his biography, how wrong where we. This was awful - just painfully bad. Here we have a visionary who had such a cultural impact on our everyday life - instead the film focuses on his daughter. The supporting cast added no real benefit other than an irritation to what already was an irritating film. With such a great cast this was so disappointing. We hated this film. Too much dialogue, wrong subject matter. And on top of it, the film goes out of its way to make Steve Jobs look like such a bad man. We are not surprised this bombed! ‪#‎film2view‬ rating: ⭐ facebook.com/film2view

I remember before 'The Social Network' came out people couldn't imagine how you could make an interesting screenplay out of the creation of Facebook. However they had underestimated Aaron Sorkin and soon after its release realised their mistake. The dialogue he writes and the pacing of his storytelling is second only to Christopher and Jonathan Nolan in my opinion. 'Steve Jobs' is another fine example of his talents. He tells the story in a unique way, dividing the story into three parts, and it works. Simple as that. Danny Boyle's direction is also excellent it has to be said but most of that stems from the great script he had to work with. Michael Fassbender has been nominated for Best Actor in a Lead role at the Academy awards. He is indeed excellent. His performance is snappy and on point delivering the wonderfully written dialogue in convincing fashion. Sadly for him this is DiCaprio's year and no one is taking that award away from him. Kate WInslet has also been nominated for Best Supporting Actress. I didn't think she was overly impressive. She did her thing well enough but I was never blown away and there was no one scene that made me stand up and take notice. I don't think she's done enough to knock Alicia Vikander off her perch. The wonderful pacing makes the two hour runtime fly by. Even if you don't have much of an interest in Steve Jobs and his story (like I don't overly) you can still enjoy it and get an insight into what the man was like. People can make up their own opinion on whether he was a good man or not. No one could deny he had his issues but they also couldn't deny there was a strong level of genius behind it all. Watch the film and make up your mind for yourself. You won't regret it.

After watching this era's angry, visionary, entrepreneur's business meetings in the movie called -part one of the saga - Jobs at 2013, this year we are facing the second part of the saga: Steve Jobs. As we all saw how business meetings were bloody, this time we'll visit the product launch and marketing meetings section of, angry Steve. Like part one, part two is crafted with dialogue. Non-stop conflicts of angry Steve and world. Expect nothing more than talking people. Mission for the crowd is to understand how brilliant angry Steve and how he shaped the things by listening the conversations and carefully tracing body language. Next episode, we'll dwell into monolouges of angry Steve while he's unloading his sh*t. Long mind conversations happens inside of this brilliant mind, while peeling a health apple. Waste of time, tells nothing to the audience. How come somebody watchs -at least- Jobs and had motivation to do another, just conversation based movie about this man. Pirates of the Silicon Valley is still best film about this specific topic, there are no competitors to it. one last word, I could understand what's so weird or unacceptable about behaviours of a man, who creates his own company from nothing to a biggest company in the world. I mean, i know much terrible dudes, who owns literally nothing but treats his employee like they are waste of sperm because somebody told him that he's the Ceo of a company. Business in human world runs like this. You have to slap everybody in the face if you want what you want. very terrible movie. shame on you Mr. Boyle and if your movies will be like this, please spare Trainspotting 2 from happening.