"Jobs"

[Stewball]

OK, I don't really get why this is getting such poor ratings. I thought it was great, and no, it wasn't really political either way. And the best part was Kutcher's performance. He did his homework in prepping himself for it, and I'm not talking about his mannerisms, I wouldn't even know if he got those right or not. He was just immersed in the role so well.

Two things that probably pissed people off is that is didn't go into enough detail for some, and the rest were probably upset that is exposed him for the asshole he was. The movie starts of with someone calling him that, and some of the shit he did really earned him the title--for life. But he was an asshole with a lot of creative energy, and the intelligence, like Gates, to handle both the electronics and the business. Biography is probably the hardest type of film to be creative with, without making stuff up and pissing people off with both lies AND the Truth. I'm not that familiar with his life story, but it seemed to hit most of the high points I do know about, and had a lot I didn't know.

The film has also been criticized for not delving into Job's complexities, but I don't think anyone really knew him well enough to shine a light on them, or if they did they haven't come forward (yet?).

A great quote early, [spoiler]"I'm sorry if my life is screwing up your high"[/spoiler]. Then at the end he's recording a paragraph apparently from a '95, 70 minute film, The "Lost" Interview, that was sort of John Galt-ish, only shorter, and must have been at least part of the inspiration for Kutcher's acceptance speech at the Teen Choice Awards.

BTW, I'm typing this on my PC. 8/10

[lisa-]

Two things that probably pissed people off is that is didn't go into enough detail for some, and the rest were probably upset that is exposed him for the asshole he was.

this is kind of odd, because the top reviews that pop up on the sidebar for me say the complete opposite:

Josh Gad was pretty good as Wozniak. And Kutcher did a good job as Jobs? But this movie wasn't enjoyable at all. It's both too quickly paced and too long, and it pays lip service to any sort of deeper investigation of Steve Jobs's flaws before recasting him as the Randian superman being crushed by the small-minded bureaucrats and businessmen that just can't understand his genius, while simultaneous trying to portray him as a champion of the people, making computers for the working man.

Jobs is essentially a remake of The Fountainhead complete with bland dialogue and the glorification of a petulant, backstabbing jackass who paints himself as the victim when businessmen disagree with his uncompromisable vision. Steve Jobs was one of the most important and influential people of the past 30 years, to say otherwise would be a lie. But he was an awful, lying asshole who turned a blind eye to his Chinese laborers killing themselves and screwed over everyone he came into contact with.

[Stewball]

this is kind of odd, because the top reviews that pop up on the sidebar for me say the complete opposite:

Both of those reviews are all over the map. I mean, "too quickly paced and too long"???. And I was looking at R/T (26/48) and IMDb (5.5) (current scores) as well.

Most people who have followed Jobs know that he is an asshole. He even cheated Woz in their early times together.

But most people didn't follow Jobs. Like me, they're only familiar with the surface news about him. I wasn't offended by them showing him as a jerk, because that's apparently what he was. Others are sometimes offended by the Truth if you expose their idol with all his warts which they'd been working so hard to suppress.

Jobs understood technology as well as a non-techincal business person could. But he wasn't a technical person at all. Not even close. Not a criticism, but just saying. He became rather good at what he did.

If so, then the movie misrepresented him to a degree. But understanding technology "as well as a non-technical person could", could still be impressive.

I am sure Woz knew him well enough and also criticized the movie. Kutcher's response was that Woz is involved with a rival Jobs biopic. But some of Woz's criticism seemed valid. Apparently the movie portrays Jobs having some deep vision when starting his business with Woz - but that's pure fanboiism. Woz's contention is that all Jobs wanted to do was sell 20$ motherboards that Woz built for 40$ and make a few bucks.

I think the movie portrayed the motherboard episode relatively correctly, in his shyster way of going about it. It's impossible to say if Jobs felt he was onto something more because of the money or the technology, which is the part any salesman would hype....er, emphasize. And Kutcher's accusation about Woz is well taken in that it's possible; not to mention that it could be a reflection of any bad feelings Woz was likely harboring. It's probably best to wait and see what comes out of that project and/or if Woz supplies some verifiable insights.

In thinking about it all, I believe the movie's biggest missed opportunity is exploring what happened to him personally while he was away from Apple. I understand that he came back a different man. Why? What happened?

[TrixRabbi]

Wow, I'm cited in an internet argument. Weird.

I know this is old, but might as well chime in. It's hard to fit everything you want to say into a 500 character review.

I'm perfectly fine with Steve Jobs being presented as an asshole, because he was one. That's not my issue with the film. My issue is that it shows Jobs being an asshole, but then it doesn't care. It shows him throwing his pregnant girlfriend out of his house, but then that's it. Nothing comes of that plot. If anything, the film is saying that's it okay that he did these things because he made the iMac. So much of that film is just money shots of Apple products. It plays out more like a 2 hour advertisement.

I'm not offended that Jobs is portrayed as an ass, I'm offended that he's portrayed as a messiah, in spite of his being an ass.

[ShogunRua]

Wow, I'm cited in an internet argument. Weird.

I know this is old, but might as well chime in. It's hard to fit everything you want to say into a 500 character review.

I'm perfectly fine with Steve Jobs being presented as an asshole, because he was one. That's not my issue with the film. My issue is that it shows Jobs being an asshole, but then it doesn't care. It shows him throwing his pregnant girlfriend out of his house, but then that's it. Nothing comes of that plot. If anything, the film is saying that's it okay that he did these things because he made the iMac. So much of that film is just money shots of Apple products. It plays out more like a 2 hour advertisement.

I'm not offended that Jobs is portrayed as an ass, I'm offended that he's portrayed as a messiah, in spite of his being an ass.

I don't find this to be a cogent argument so much as a subjective tautology. Many great people who massively benefited society were assholes. So what? Does being an asshole invalidate all the good they did? Oftentimes for generations and generations, amounting to billions of individuals?

Isaac Newton, for instance, was a huge asshole. Are you going to deny the positive effect he had on mankind's knowledge?

Doing so strikes me as very myopic and childish.

[TrixRabbi]

Wow, I'm cited in an internet argument. Weird.

I know this is old, but might as well chime in. It's hard to fit everything you want to say into a 500 character review.

I'm perfectly fine with Steve Jobs being presented as an asshole, because he was one. That's not my issue with the film. My issue is that it shows Jobs being an asshole, but then it doesn't care. It shows him throwing his pregnant girlfriend out of his house, but then that's it. Nothing comes of that plot. If anything, the film is saying that's it okay that he did these things because he made the iMac. So much of that film is just money shots of Apple products. It plays out more like a 2 hour advertisement.

I'm not offended that Jobs is portrayed as an ass, I'm offended that he's portrayed as a messiah, in spite of his being an ass.

I don't find this to be a cogent argument so much as a subjective tautology. Many great people who massively benefited society were assholes. So what? Does being an asshole invalidate all the good they did? Oftentimes for generations and generations, amounting to billions of individuals?

Isaac Newton, for instance, was a huge asshole. Are you going to deny the positive effect he had on mankind's knowledge?

Doing so strikes me as very myopic and childish.

In my original mini-review I acknowledged that Jobs is an immensely influential figure and he did a lot of great things for society (and some pretty bad things as well). However, I don't want a moral argument on whether Steve Jobs was a good person or not, let's talk about the film.

The film Jobs can't decide if it wants to be an exploration into this man's life, or a 2 hour Apple commercial. It tries to have it both ways. We get these scenes of Steve Jobs at his worst, such as when he yells at his pregnant girlfriend and kicks her out of his house. Or the scene where he deliberately tells his lawyer to cut his partners out of royalties.

However, the film does nothing to explore these events. It has nothing to say except "they happened." Jobs accusing his girlfriend of lying should be a major plot development, instead the film immediately cuts to him strutting into Apple HQ and being greeted like a state hero. The next we hear of this plot is when Jobs' lawyer is trying to convince him not to sign away visitation rights for his daughter, and then one last scene near the end of the film where his daughter is just in his house years later. The film does nothing to explore this plot line, it's just another event in his life to shove into the plot.

The majority of the film is pretty much shot like a commercial. Glamor shots of Macintosh computers being built, the triumphant reveal of the 1984 Super Bowl ad, a spunky young designer delivering a monologue straight into the camera about how Apple represents innovation and creativity. Did you notice how many times they frame him with that same picture of Einstein?

It's a film that, like RandallODim's review said, tries to paint Jobs as a superman, far superior to us mere mortals, while simultaneously trying to sell him as hero of the working class. It IS too long while moving too quickly. It certainly outstays its welcome, but it also shoves in far too many events while offering no real insight into any them. It would do better to dwell on the more important aspects of Steve Jobs, rather than just act as a slideshow of his accomplishments. Reading the Wikipedia article on him is more insightful than this movie.

[ShogunRua]

In my original mini-review I acknowledged that Jobs is an immensely influential figure and he did a lot of great things for society (and some pretty bad things as well). However, I don't want a moral argument on whether Steve Jobs was a good person or not, let's talk about the film.

The film Jobs can't decide if it wants to be an exploration into this man's life, or a 2 hour Apple commercial. It tries to have it both ways. We get these scenes of Steve Jobs at his worst, such as when he yells at his pregnant girlfriend and kicks her out of his house. Or the scene where he deliberately tells his lawyer to cut his partners out of royalties.

However, the film does nothing to explore these events. It has nothing to say except "they happened." Jobs accusing his girlfriend of lying should be a major plot development, instead the film immediately cuts to him strutting into Apple HQ and being greeted like a state hero. The next we hear of this plot is when Jobs' lawyer is trying to convince him not to sign away visitation rights for his daughter, and then one last scene near the end of the film where his daughter is just in his house years later. The film does nothing to explore this plot line, it's just another event in his life to shove into the plot.

The majority of the film is pretty much shot like a commercial. Glamor shots of Macintosh computers being built, the triumphant reveal of the 1984 Super Bowl ad, a spunky young designer delivering a monologue straight into the camera about how Apple represents innovation and creativity. Did you notice how many times they frame him with that same picture of Einstein?

It's a film that, like RandallODim's review said, tries to paint Jobs as a superman, far superior to us mere mortals, while simultaneously trying to sell him as hero of the working class. It IS too long while moving too quickly. It certainly outstays its welcome, but it also shoves in far too many events while offering no real insight into any them. It would do better to dwell on the more important aspects of Steve Jobs, rather than just act as a slideshow of his accomplishments. Reading the Wikipedia article on him is more insightful than this movie.

Very good post; thanks for explicating upon your views.

I have not seen "Jobs", and have little interest in doing so. I was solely commenting on the idea that assholes can't do good for the world, an idea which you seemed to be arguing previously.

On a related note, this topic highlights the limitations of 500 character reviews, even for shallow movies like this one.