Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Bereamic Awesome Movie

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

jimanuel12 i don't care what the critics said about the movie and i don't care what the trolls on here think. this was Ashton Kutcher's best acting performance in my opinion. i thought he did a great job of portraying Steven Jobs. i also thought the movie itself was a very good movie - going back to the beginning and then at the end in 2001 when Steve jobs brought Apple back. Ashton had the jobs walk down pat - he also shows what a butt hole Steve Jobs was at times - especially when he was young. i just wish that movie would have went further into job's life at the end. he brought Apple back with the iPhone and then he got sick. he did finally make up with his daughter that he denied for so many years but i think as he got older - he was a better man and father. anyway - i think if you want to know the real Steve Jobs - then Jobs is a great movie. it is well worth the time to watch and enjoy. i myself - well i loved it.

calvinnme I've seen this film and the one starring Michael Fassbender, "Steve Jobs". The difference between the two is this - This film shows a great deal of Steve's' life, with a real accent on the mid to late 70s as Apple was being created. The Fassbender film only shows three specific scenes in Steve's life, but by the time the film is through, even though Fassbender does not even resemble Steve Jobs, you feel like you are looking right at him because of Fassbender's electrifying performance. In "Jobs" Kutcher may be made up to look and walk like Jobs, but I never feel like I am getting into the head of Steve Jobs.What does this film do well? The first half of it captures the look and feel of early home computing in a totally realistic way - the kind of people who were involved, the way that they dressed, what early homemade personal computers in the 1970s looked like. What did they look like? It was like the first cars when they were called "horseless carriages" because that's what people AND the inventors understood as the old paradigm. The horse was being replaced with an engine and the rest of the car looked like carriages always had looked. So the earliest computers had switches and lights and sat in unattractive blue boxes that engineers thought were great, but the average person had no idea what to do with such a thing and didn't want one.What did this film do poorly? I'd say Steve Wozniak is presented as a mere shadow of himself here. You never see the camaraderie or dynamic between himself and Jobs. The old Home Brew Club looked up to Wozniak, and when he presents the first "Apple" computer to them they just look bored and Woz looks scared.Finally I come to Ashton Kutcher. Ashton Kutcher's problem is that he did one of his earliest roles so well and so long - that of mega screw up Kelso in the long running TV comedy "That 70's Show". He did it so well in fact that I ALWAYS see Kelso whenever I see Kutcher, no matter how well he is performing. In this film I kept waiting for his 70's Show girlfriend, alpha female attack dog Jackie, to come jumping out of a dark corner and start yelling at him and tell him what a screw up he is. Kutcher can't help this. I call it "Norman Bates Syndrome" - the same thing that happened to Anthony Perkins. No matter what role Anthony Perkins took after Psycho, no matter how well he did it, he was always Norman Bates. You just kept waiting for him to hit somebody over the head and start preparing the body to add to his collection of stuffed animals/people.This is not a terrible film on Jobs. Nobody does a bad job, and it is interesting from a history of personal computing perspective. I'd say see this one for the history, and watch the Fassbender rendition in "Steve Jobs" to get a feel for the essence of the man, who will always remain somewhat of an enigma.

dromasca The entrepreneur is one of the incarnation of the new American Hero in movies, and it is not surprising that the people who made the Personal Computer and the Internet part of the basic fabric of our lives, and turned Silicon Valley in the center of the technological Universe are getting more and more attention from the Southern neighbors in Hollywood. Steve Jobs has his turn as one of these heroes, his premature death in 2011 made of his character an easier to deal with. Easier because he is no longer here to sue anybody, and also because his malady and than death gave an implicit tragic substance to a life of full of achievements but also of personal controversies. As I have seen in one weekend days both feature films dedicated lately to his biography I have the feeling that none of them would have been possible if Jobs had been still with us.At first sight 'Jobs' directed by Joshua Michael Stern would be the most conventional of the two biographical movies. It starts with one epic moment of success (the launching of iPod which changed forever the music industry) to go back in time to the late 60s when the young Jobs was searching his ways in life among music, India, some drugs, girls. He was different, he was thinking a creative way, but we never get a real glimpse of his technology or design insights. The script written by Matt Whiteley seems rather to emphasize his astonishing business skills, doubled by recognition of talent that can be used in other people, and a set of no-prisoners tools which guided him in his career as well in his personal life. The Steve Jobs in this 'Jobs' is almost a persona we are invited to hate.What keeps him away from the ugly negative characters space is the acting of Ashton Kutcher. I have read so many bad things about him that his performance in 'Jobs' comes as a real surprise. He succeeds not only to recover many of the physical characteristics of the character, but also gave substance and charm to many of the moments of the film, especially in the first part that deals with the early years. Do we come closer to understanding the real Steve Jobs? I do not think so, but I believe that the problem is in the script and not in the acting, which did not walk the extra mile of trying to discover and explain the motivation of the man and the secrets of his extraordinary skills. Yet, while dealing only with the external strata, the film is quite successful in my opinion in retracing the atmosphere of a time where the flower power revolution resulted not only in fabulous music but also in a wave of inventiveness which changed the world in a different place than intended.Would Steve Jobs have liked this film? I doubt it, and not only because he personally comes out as the rather jerky character in the story. He may also have said - 'I have already seen this', fired the team and go deal with the next thing. That was Steve Jobs.

Bryan Kluger Joshua Michael Stern's bio-pic about one of the world's greatest tech innovators offers a selective look into the life of Steve Jobs and his first twenty rocky years with Apple. Not only does the film present an informative and somewhat displeasing portrait of one of America's beloved icons, it's also very entertaining. As 'Jobs' (formerly known as 'jOBS') is set to release on Apple's 37th anniversary, I expect it to appeal to Apple fanboys, admirers and anyone who uses an Apple product.The first scene shows Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) introducing the first iPod to a select group of people, which basically marks the start of Apple's rise to become the gigantic international company it is today. We then journey back to the early '70s to see young Jobs attending but soon dropping out of Reed College. After a few drops of acid, a trip to India and discussions about life, he ends up in Silicon Valley at a little video game company called Atari. This is where he meets Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), the future co-founder of Apple.Jobs and Wozniak leave Atari and, with the help of a few other friends, develop the Apple I computer kit in Jobs' parent's garage. This is followed quickly by the Apple II. A business entrepreneur by the name of Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney) hears about their product and decides to fully fund the venture. After a few years, the Macinotsh computer is unveiled in the mid-'80s.Due to the actions of a few asinine CEOs and marketing managers, Jobs gets forced out of the company that he created. However, the company eventually begs him to come back after years of falling behind competitor Microsoft. The movie ends where it began, with Jobs in total control again, introducing the devices that begin with "i" that the world will come to use every hour of every day.Those looking for a complete biographical narrative may be disappointed, as several key parts of the Jobs story go unmentioned, such as Wozniak's origins, the feud with Bill Gates, Pixar, or any of the company's operating systems. Instead, we get a selective glimpse from this period of time where Jobs struggles with his ownership of the company, with abandoning his pregnant girlfriend, and with not taking an interest in his first daughter until a much older age.Kutcher is phenomenal as Steve Jobs. Not only does he give a commanding performance full of monologues about computer jargon, but he nails the physical aspect of the man, from his quirky walk to his body language. I hate to say it, but he might even be worthy of an award at year-end. Gad also plays Wozniak perfectly, but his character is under-utilized and only seems to be there to push the story forward.'Jobs' may not be the definitive biography about the iconic founder of Apple, but it sure is an entertaining movie that shows more than just the public side of a famous man.