Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs is a luxuriously crafted spectacle for attentive and knowledgeable viewers. A sophisticated choice of moments from the attractive backstage of Jobs’ work, comprehensively covering his personality in both his working and family life. The film is packed with excellent dialogue, so sophisticatedly cut in places that you cannot even take in all the information in one go. And each piece of this information is damn important for the resulting experience. The film’s complexity therefore increases with every repeated viewing, which happens once in a decade in contemporary cinema. Fassbender is inconspicuously brilliant. (12/03/2015)

Aaron Sorkin's vividly deft dialogue passages are great, as are the minimum of showy gestures and the absence of unnecessary overload of pathetic emotions in a story about a brilliant man who worked with them like a god and expressed them very sporadically (or sophistically). However, the subliminal wisecracks and subtle business hints in this "live" staged story are monstrously spoiled by the fact that there's terribly little of the broader story, and virtually nothing much going on. If this were a 10-minute cut from the trailer for the first Mac, the narrative value would be quite similar and the experience even more intense than watching a similar variation for 122 minutes. (11/14/2015)

Sorkin and Boyle are like left and right hands that have long since been stitched to a body to create a Frankensteinian monster that fundamentally vindicates the argument that wisdom and beauty cannot be in permanent opposition. Which, by the way, I have been proving with my own existence for some time now. The seemingly theatrical three-act plot, with its relentless deadlines stomped out by unkempt hamsters who can't wait to find out what useless, unmodifiable junk they'll let themselves get fleeced by Mac for this year, is instead a constant reminder that we're watching a movie. And not just with the fairly unnecessary format changes over the years, but above all Boyle-style editing or minimal repetition of shots. On the contrary, the characters are constantly moving and interacting with their surroundings. Themes are carried over from location to location. The characters' exalted dialogues are interspersed with those of the same characters in flashbacks, achieving, among other things, a double continuous gradation of the same theme (and the cynic may already be thinking Sorkin is overdoing it here). What’s more, when compared to Zuckerberg, for whom the screenwriter had rather a soft spot, given his zero-to-hero development in the world of the privileged, there seeps an undeniable contempt for the narcissistic sociopath who has won a grand mastery of promoting mediocrity through mere form. And with biopics, which mostly suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, that automatically warms the cockles. (03/07/2016)

They simply had to shoot this differently and focus on a family or on dialogues between some interesting characters; thus, in a way that was lacking in Silicon Valley or the movie Jobs. On the other hand, I don’t think that Steve Jobs deserves this many movies. Michael Fassbender and Danny Boyle might have showcased some proper filmmaking art, but completely in vain, in my opinion. (02/28/2016)

A couple of years ago we had Jobs starring Ashton Kutcher, so Danny Boyle had to bet on other certainties besides the theme, and in my opinion that was mainly the well-chosen cast. Michael Fassbender gives a truly above-average convincing performance in the lead role, while his second Kate Winslet only confirms her strong acting qualities, of which we have been aware for two decades. The first half is rather slower and less intense, but in the second half everything starts to build up and the highlights are the heated dialogues between Fassbender, Winslet and Jeff Daniels. In short, it's more of a conversational drama revealing more facts around the myth of Steve Jobs. (02/01/2016)