Plots(1)

His passion and ingenuity have been the driving force behind the digital age. However his drive to revolutionize technology was sacrificial. Ultimately it affected his family life and possibly his health. In this revealing film we explore the trials and triumphs of a modern day genius, the late CEO of Apple inc. Steven Paul Jobs. (official distributor synopsis)

(more)

Videos (18)

Trailer 1

Reviews (9)

3DD!3 

all reviews of this user

English A concert of fine acting from Fassbender from start to finish + the wonderful Kate Winslet. Boyle’s dynamic direction makes conversations (a fantastic exchange of opinions in the middle of the movie) and other situations unbelievably powerful. Sorkin’s polished dialogs are a sure bet. Even quite obvious things and add-ons + inspiration do not disturb viewing. Probably the only movie this year that met my expectations. P.S.: I found my Mac I had at Junior High rather restrictive, I don’t own an iPhone and I only knew Jobs from the Simpsons before he died. ()

POMO 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Ads

DaViD´82 

all reviews of this user

English It's not about Jobs's many successes (failures) in Atari, Apple, NeXT or Pixar, so it's not a movie an about a visionary who without doubt influenced the Western world in many ways by them. It is a little more about Jobs, however it is not mainly focused on him, as an extremely interesting person, who combines a capable (willing to do what it takes) and in many respects genius and very intelligent "leader" who was able to sell his innovative vision like no other, with undeniable business skills and charming personality, as well as an arrogant and often unreasonably cruel and emotionally unstable manipulator suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder who does not hesitate to go over dead bodies even of those who are close to him. And that's the nicer side of his dark side. But by far the most it is about the simple relationship of a complicated personality to the world, colleagues, friends and above all about finding a way in life and about an unwanted daughter. It's typically "Sorkinian-style" movie. No doubt about that. However, this time he managed to avoid a frequent weak point of his movies in a very smart way; namely, that his characters theatrically recite and do not speak like real people. And so he immediately captured it as a kind of stylized theatrical performance based on fiction inspired by the reality showed in three acts and returning visits à la Dickens's Christmas Carol. What Honor did well is that, apart from the period format of the individual acts, he stays away from his habits and he completely relies on the frantic pace of Sorkin's energetic dialogs and excellent actors, which is far from just a hymn to the Fassbender-Winslet-Rogen trio. ()

Othello 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Malarkey 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Gallery (64)