Aaron Sorkin/Danny Boyle's "Steve Jobs" (Fassbender)

[Napoleon]

Just got back from this. Loved it. This movie captures perfectly who Steve Jobs was and what he meant to those around him, including all the idiosyncrasies that made him who he is, from his love of Bob Dylan to his reality-distortion field. Sorkin is for sure going to win Best Adapted Screenplay, and Michael Fassbender I'd say is now one of the top two contenders for Best Actor along with Eddie Redmayne.

 

[weezerspider]

I thought the film was good but not The Social Network good. Fassbender was very good, Kate Winslet was even better.

I'll give it an 8/10

As for the lame box office, I always thought that roll out was a bad idea and I do believe that it hurt the film's numbers. I don't think it would have put up TSN numbers anyway but releasing your film wide after the hype from the general public has died down is a stupid move. Hopefully it has a good run.

For the last time, all of these types of films have these sorts of releases. Sicario, Ex Machina, Love and Mercy ect. all had similar release schedules. This is what these types of films do. It's a way to gage how much to push the "wide release". This is a product of independent films being left on the back burner for the big releases. It's been like this for years.

 

[Octoberist]

It's amazing how the Ashton Kutcher film, a TV movie, has been ingrained into the consciousness of the general public. I keep seeing comments like 'How many of these are they're gonna make?" (Even though this is only the second bio-pic. Anything else would be lesser known documentaries.)

 

[ThePhantasm]

the Kutcher one sucked so bad

 

[Snow Queen]

the Kutcher one sucked so bad

That can be said for the vast majority of films/shows that star Ashton Kutcher.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

For the last time, all of these types of films have these sorts of releases. Sicario, Ex Machina, Love and Mercy ect. all had similar release schedules. This is what these types of films do. It's a way to gage how much to push the "wide release". This is a product of independent films being left on the back burner for the big releases. It's been like this for years.

And those films didn't make a lot of money so your point is moot. The Social Network didn't have a roll out and it managed to do just fine. Slow rollouts are risky as hell and make sense in late November and December, not freaking October where there are no awards and the like to prop a film up.

The studio made a bad call by releasing the film after the buzz had died down. Period. If the budget were 10 million or under and the film wasn't about a mainstream subject I would get the rollout but I don't get the roll out when it comes to Steve Jobs.

And I do acknowledge that the film had other stuff working against it. That bad Kutcher movie did muck things up and I love Fassbender but nobody was going to rush out to see him play Steve Jobs. Leo or Bale with Fincher? Sure but Fassbender and Boyle? They were going to need a way, way more eye catching campaign.

It's not pretty but I'm just telling it like it is.

 

[weezerspider]

And those films didn't make a lot of money so your point is moot. The Social Network didn't have a roll out and it managed to do just fine. Slow rollouts are risky as hell and make sense in late November and December, not freaking October where there are no awards and the like to prop a film up.

The studio made a bad call by releasing the film after the buzz had died down. Period. If the budget were 10 million or under and the film wasn't about a mainstream subject I would get the rollout but I don't get the roll out when it comes to Steve Jobs.

And I do acknowledge that the film had other stuff working against it. That bad Kutcher movie did muck things up and I love Fassbender but nobody was going to rush out to see him play Steve Jobs. Leo or Bale with Fincher? Sure but Fassbender and Boyle? They were going to need a way, way more eye catching campaign.

It's not pretty but I'm just telling it like it is.

Ex Machina made around $37 million on a $15 million budget.
Sicario made around $62 million on a $30 million budget.
Love and Mercy made around $13 million on a $3 million budget.
Those films did fairly well for themselves. Not every film has to make $250 million to be a success. This is how independent films are released. It's been this way a long time.

Also, aside from Sorkin, this film has nothing really in common with The Social Network and the average movie-goer isn't going to see a film for the screenwriter.

 

[Anita18]

I love Fassbender but nobody was going to rush out to see him play Steve Jobs. Leo or Bale with Fincher? Sure but Fassbender and Boyle? They were going to need a way, way more eye catching campaign.

No matter what, I think they needed a more eye-catching campaign. From the first trailer, it was clear The Social Network wasn't JUST about Mark Zuckerburg being socially awkward. It was about human relationships.

Nobody wants to see an a-hole being an a-hole for hours. That's kind of what the movie's entire premise is in the marketing. Even the Apple fans I know (and I do know A LOT of them, since I'm a designer) are like, "Meh" about that part.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

@Weezerspider I am obviously not talking about mainstream superhero blockbuster numbers.

@Anita18, I agree that the trailers could have been more engaging.

 

[Octoberist]

I just think the subject matter isn't all that interesting to people, especially after The Social Network and Kutcher's Jobs film.

 

[Napoleon]

All that matters to me is that the film accomplished what it set out to do.

 

[jmc]

Bloody hell, I've just found out I've got to wait until January to watch this.

No matter what, I think they needed a more eye-catching campaign. From the first trailer, it was clear The Social Network wasn't JUST about Mark Zuckerburg being socially awkward. It was about human relationships.

Nobody wants to see an a-hole being an a-hole for hours. That's kind of what the movie's entire premise is in the marketing. Even the Apple fans I know (and I do know A LOT of them, since I'm a designer) are like, "Meh" about that part.

I've seen quite a bit of discussion from Apple fans about ignoring the film entirely. They're quite protective of the brand and in particular to the memory of Steve Jobs.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Those people are idiots then. I don't think Steve Jobs is a great film nor do I think Fassbender is great in the film but it's a solid film that is not a character assassination piece. Portraying Jobs as a saint would have been the incorrect way to go with the picture.

Also Android phones are better.

 

[jmc]

I'm an Apple user and fan but the cult like atmosphere that surrounds Jobs from some in the community really annoys me.

 

[Anita18]

Everyone knew he was a jerk. What some disagree on is whether his jerkiness was a requirement for his brilliance. I say no.

 

[chamber-music]

Many brilliant or talented people are jerks. Sometimes having that single minded determination achieve something involves some scummy behaviour.

All the shady and underhanded stuff Microsoft did under Bill Gates is well documented.

You can admire someone's talents or achievements without sanctifying them.

 

[Schlosser85]

I'm going to see this in a couple hours.

 

[TheFuture]

Nobody wants to see an a-hole being an a-hole for hours. That's kind of what the movie's entire premise is in the marketing. Even the Apple fans I know (and I do know A LOT of them, since I'm a designer) are like, "Meh" about that part.

No one wants to watch an a-hole for hours when they all know that a-hole isn't going to falter by the end of the film.

Someone being a *****e on his way to the top and staying there is an incredibly hard sell. I love Bale but even he couldn't make me want to see this.

 

[Napoleon]

Well that's how Steve Jobs was.

I swear some of you will not watch a movie unless the main character is a perfect little squeaky clean angel.

Lawd.

 

[terry78]

The whole "Sheldon Cooper" genius dynamic is big rright now. Brilliant guys who can't seem to function in normal society and alienate everyone they think they're smarter than. It's what's hot in the film world.

 

[TheFuture]

Well that's how Steve Jobs was.

I swear some of you will not watch a movie unless the main character is a perfect little squeaky clean angel.

Lawd.

Nah, but a lot of people prefer to watch a film like The Wolf of Wall Street or Scarface, where the *****e falls from his throne.

Rightly or wrongly people are a lot less inclined to give their money to watch a guy be a *****e and stay on his throne by the end of the film. It doesn't make them feel good about themselves.

 

[PacificBoy]

It's a well-crafted movie but lacked the story and marketing hook that The Social Network had in "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies". Especially for a general audience already this familiar with Jobs. Between Walter Isaacson's 2011 biography and Alex Gibney's documentary earlier this year, there has already been so much said, written and depicted about the man.

 

[LostSon88]

I liked it. It truly does work almost as a play...

 

[Schlosser85]

My review:

http://www.jestersreviews.com/reviews/3107

 

[Schlosser85]

I liked how it felt like it could have worked just as well as a play. I liked how acting-centric it was, and you could feel how it attracted these actors, with Fassbender/Winslet, Fassbender/Rogen, Fassbender/Daniels, etc. all getting to have these juicy one-on-one scenes. I liked the camera work and the crackle in the dialogue.

It played fast and loose with the facts, but the structure worked, split into three acts each marked by a product launch where Jobs is visited, like Scrooge by the ghosts of Christmas past. It wasn't strictly rooted in reality, but the structure worked for the character study/morality play it aimed for.