Watch Steve Jobs For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

I wanted to but couldn't!

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

So, Steve Jobs is an ass. That's clearly well established in this movie called - somewhat unoriginally, but with precise definition, "Steve Jobs." I don't know if it's ever been proven to be true or not, but anecdotally at least, brilliant people are often socially inept at best, and do't do well with relationships. Jobs apparently managed to alienate almost everyone in his life - from his friends (most importantly Steve Wozniak, played by Seth Rogen) to his lover Chrisass Brennan (Katherine Waterston) to the daughter he spent years denying (played by different actresses at various ages) to pretty much anyone who ever worked for him or with him at Apple Computers. He wasn't a particularly nice guy. We spent two hours learning that - although there are quite a few people (including John Sculley, who became Apple CEO and is portrayed by Jeff Daniels) who argue that the portrayal of Jobs in the movie is unfair.My basic complaint with the movie is that Jobs did, indeed, come across as extremely one dimensional. It felt as if I was watching a caricature of the man rather than a serious biography. Michael Fassbender played him - and did well enough - but I didn't come away from the movie feeling as if I knew much more about Jobs than I did coming into it and, except possibly for Lisa as she grows up with a father who refuses to acknowledge that he is her father, I really didn't much care for anyone or about anything in the movie. There's some interesting material I guess about the growth of Apple and Jobs' other ventures leading up to his return to Apple and the ultimate reconciliation between Jobs and Lisa eventually gives you a bit of a heartwarming moment. But I really found this to be on the whole rather passionless and cold. (4/10)

Steve Jobs was a fascinating, though complex, individual, so having a film based on him was always going to peek interest. Then there is the talent involved in 'Steve Jobs', director Danny Boyle who has made some very good films, one of today's most talented script-writers Aaron Sorkin and Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet as the leads.Found 'Steve Jobs' to be a good and interesting film, albeit not one that will appeal to all viewers as can be seen from the polarising reviews. There is a lot to like here, and the good points are actually excellent. At the same time, considering the involvement of such fine talent and subject matter, 'Steve Jobs' also had potential to be, and perhaps should have been, more than good, great even. There are also a few issues here, and fairly sizeable ones, though there is much more good than there is bad.There could have been more complexity to Jobs himself, difficult to do for a perfectionist who was very difficult to work with. Can definitely understand the criticism of 'Steve Jobs' being a pretty one-dimensional portrait of the man that magnifies his flaws. For something featuring heavily, his personal/family life could have been better explored and delved into more, there is heart with the relationship between Steve and Lisa but the final fifteen minutes or so to me came over as contrived rather than emotional and although Katherine Waterston does a good job her role is underwritten.At times, the film is jumpy and also could have shown more of the launches themselves and showed how they were received rather than being told afterwards, for a film so heavily reliant on the backstage/behind the scenes aspects. Actually really liked the script on the most part, it is though talk-heavy and with scenes having a lot to take in there are instances where it's not easy keeping up. Also didn't buy Jobs/Scully's final scene together, which went against what was seen with their acrimonious confrontations before. However, 'Steve Jobs' is very well made visually. It's unfussy but never cheap, actually it is very slick. It may feel like a filmed play, which is also down to the structure of the film, but for me it wasn't a problem. Boyle directs in a restrained fashion, while showing plenty of engagement with his material. The music is both low-key and lively when used.While not perfect, Sorkin's script is one of the high points of 'Steve Jobs'. It's thought-provoking, intriguing smart and rapid-fire, with plenty of wit, intensity and snappy put-downs. The story, following an unconventional yet fascinating three act structure dealing with three different launches that Jobs revolutionised, goes at an energetic pace and is kept afloat by the intensity of the characters (especially Jobs and Joanna). Things move quickly and there is plenty to be interested by, one just can't help feeling that some aspects could have been delved into more. Jobs and Joanna have plenty of intensity in their chemistry, while Woz's final scene and the big scenes between Jobs and Scully are especially powerful. Other than Sorkin's script, 'Steve Jobs' best asset is the acting. Fassbender may not look like Steve Jobs but he is nonetheless terrific and is an incredibly compelling presence. Winslet's performance is tense and deeply felt. Michael Stuhlbarg steals scenes in his not large screen time, while Seth Rogan demonstrates why he should do more dramatic roles and films and Jeff Daniels has not been this good in quite some time. Waterston does well with limited screen time and her role underwritten.Concluding, good film but not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Every techie knows who Steve Jobs was. That is, they know that he founded Apple Inc., revolutionizing computers. But most people probably don't know Steve Jobs the man. Danny Boyle's Academy Award-nominated 2015 movie "Steve Jobs" is based on Walter Isaacson's biography of the Apple founder. Jobs had authorized the bio, but Isaacson's condition was to get the final say (in that he didn't give the most flattering image of Jobs). It got published right after Jobs's death on 2011.The movie focuses on three major events in Jobs's life: the release of the Macintosh in 1984, the launch of NeXT in 1988, and the unveiling of the iMac in 1998. Accompanying each of these is the issue of Jobs's refusal to provide for an old flame who claims that he's the father of her daughter. In these scenes, he comes across as kind of a nasty person. It was ironic that I watched all this on a MacBook Air.The movie emphasizes these events and relationships; there's no depiction of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak coming up with the idea for the computer in their garage. I guess that the point is that every icon is bound to have a less-than-venerable side. But seriously, are you gonna get people in this day and age to give up their iPhones just because Steve Jobs wasn't the nicest guy?It was through watching this movie that I learned about most of the other people who were involved in launching the products. I'd heard of Jobs and Wozniak. Joanna Hoffman, Andy Hertzfeld, John Sculley and Andrea Cunningham were new to me. Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Michael Stuhlbarg and Jeff Daniels turned in outstanding performances, as expected. It was surprising to see Seth Rogen in a serious role for a change, since we're used to seeing him play stoners who talk about bodily functions. But he gives it his all here.In the end, I recommend the movie.

No one looks like the real people?Micheal Fassbender as jobs? it like having Will Smith playing Steve HawkinsJobs from 2013, is the real deal, its the best! and the cast looks like the real thing manpeace outkasper budde