Steve Jobs reviews

[ITALIANO]

I don't know. It's true that the movie has an energy which is, for once, based mostly on dialogue and performances, and I personally liked it better than The Social Network (which I hadn't fallen in love with). I found the idea of showing Steve Jobs's life - and persona - through a number of product launches (and, most importantly, the frantic events which precede them) interesting and reasonably creative - though I feel that this unconventional approach to the "biopic" genre is one of the reasons why the movie flopped. But this is another case of a screenplay being more intelligent than really good. Don't get me wrong - the dialogue is obviously well-written, and I admired some of the lines, and this is something which doesn't happen often nowadays. Still - Sorkin's presence in the movie is almost as evident, as heavy, as Steve Jobs's, and this isn't a good thing. And in the end I am not sure that I knew more about Jobs-the-man (but also about Jobs-the-genius) than what I knew before - insightful isn't a term I'd apply to this movie. Entertaining, yes - except for one crucial aspect. I had complained about how The Social Network lacked warmth, a human side. Steve Jobs finds its human side in the leading character's complex relationship with his daughter - and the scenes between the two are generally unconvincing and sound fake; the last one, especially, so banal that honestly makes one forget the good scenes before it - and there are a few really good scenes, especially those between Jobs and some of his co-workers.
The acting is very good though. Michael Fassbender does what he can with a character that has some great lines (which he delivers extremely well) but little overall complexity; he's by far the best of the five nominees, but in a more competitive year I'm not sure I'd easily vote for him. Kate Winslet is always Kate Winslet (despite the glasses and the accent) - but the role is very good, supporting in more ways than one, and the performance easily better than the one she won the Oscar for.

[dws1982]

I was impressed that Boyle toned down his usual style (which can be too much) for this. I liked it a lot as a study of egos clashing, and pride and greed taking people over. Of all the interactions, I think the Fassbender/Daniels scenes were my favorite. I think everyone is very solid, but Daniels is easily my favorite of the supporting actors.

[Okri]

If I ever get around to seeing this film, I'll keep an open mind. But I remember when I first heard about it, and I thought a Sorkin/Boyle team-up about Steve Jobs sounded like the absolute least interesting (more accurately: most irritating) project I could think of ...

I enjoyed it, but you're not wrong. Sorkin's not at his most hateable (like that episode of The Newsroom), but it's fleet. I think that Sorkin would've been a natural fit for 30s/40s Hollywood comedies and I wish he would stop trying to say things, but he has more understanding of his topic here than he did in The Social Network.

[Okri]

I am going to point out that Ashton Kutcher's Jobs movie didn't do much worse it's opening weekend.

But that did have the advantage of at being the first; Steve Jobs is the second movie on a subject of limited interest within two years (third, if you count the documentary). And you could even make the case that, to much of America, Kutcher is a bigger name than Fassbender.

I always find it sad when a film I admire fizzles at the box office, and this will certainly be seen as a fizzle relative to its budget. But Mark Harris noted the other day that it depends whether Hollywood perceives it as a movie audiences rejected, or one they simply didn't turn out for -- for instance, Whiplash last year barely cracked $13 million, but instead of being seen as a dud, it was thought by its admirers to be a great film that audiences just didn't find. Steve Jobs is an odd case, in that its grosses in initial release were impressive, and there's no sign people in those markets hated/turned on the film -- it's just that when it tried to expand to broad release, the mainstream market stayed away.

I never saw the film as a potential best picture winner (actually, the way the year's going, I don't see anything really filling that role), but I'd still imagine the major nominations (actor, supporting actress, adapted screenplay) should be locked in. A win will be tougher, and might depend on the critics -- if they go for Fassbender across the board (because there's no one else in the ballpark), he could become a default choice the way Forest Whitaker did for the similarly financially disappointing Last King of Scotland.

I don't see the Macbeth scenario in any case. Okri is right that Weinstein is treating it like an unwanted stepchild (and kudos for the Birnam Wood metaphor).

On the subject of "box office matters": conversely, Bridge of Spies is greatly enhanced by its excellent hold this weekend. I already had Mark Rylance as a sure nominee, and the film as a solid possibility, but now I'm wondering if it might slip into The Imitation Game slot: history, conventional enough for older voters, an across the board nominee.

a) Yeah, it's actually not a fair comparison at all and will not hold up to scrutiny.

b) Thanks. I was proud of that.

c) Bridge of Spies didn't seem pre-sold as an oscar nominee the way The Imitation Game was. I wonder if that would hurt. Maybe not this year...

[Johnny Guitar]

If I ever get around to seeing this film, I'll keep an open mind. But I remember when I first heard about it, and I thought a Sorkin/Boyle team-up about Steve Jobs sounded like the absolute least interesting (more accurately: most irritating) project I could think of ...

[dws1982]

There were only two or three other people in the theater when I saw it Saturday, but it was an early (10:40) showing, plus it was game day and both Alabama football teams had important conference games, so I didn't draw too many conclusions from that.

Liked the movie very much, by the way. I do like The Social Network and Moneyball (plus his TV show Sports Night) but this is my favorite Sorkin-scripted project. Hopefully I'll have time to go in a few more details after work today.

[Big Magilla]

Forest Whitaker is who I was thinking of as a winner for an underwhelming box office performer when I wrote my earlier post, but I don't think The Last King of Scotland did as poorly in terms of expectations vs. box office dollars as Steve Jobs is doing. Light box office is one thing, but people talking about being the only one or one of only four in the theatre on a Monday afternoon the day after opening weekend of a film as hyped as this one is something of an unmitigated disaster. Nominations, yes, wins, perhaps not.

Suffragette is doing worse. One of the two L.A. theatres it's playing in pulled their prime Friday night at 8:15 showing to add a screen for The Martian and both of them pulled a combined five out of seven scheduled showings for Saturday night. That's unprecedented for an opening weekend of a major film, let alone a presumed Oscar front-runner. Adding to the box office misery, mainstream critics are lukewarm at best. Mulligan may not make it.

Doing worse than both of them, though, is Truth, which has barely pulled in $204,000 in two weeks. I don't see anything in the cards for this one unless there's enough of a liberal backlash against the conservative bricks that have been hurled at it.

[Sabin]

Don't know why I said "boat load" but yeah pretty much. 6 or 7. The only difference is that the only win I thought was in the cards (Sorkin) may no longer be.

[Mister Tee]

I am going to point out that Ashton Kutcher's Jobs movie didn't do much worse it's opening weekend.

But that did have the advantage of at being the first; Steve Jobs is the second movie on a subject of limited interest within two years (third, if you count the documentary). And you could even make the case that, to much of America, Kutcher is a bigger name than Fassbender.

I always find it sad when a film I admire fizzles at the box office, and this will certainly be seen as a fizzle relative to its budget. But Mark Harris noted the other day that it depends whether Hollywood perceives it as a movie audiences rejected, or one they simply didn't turn out for -- for instance, Whiplash last year barely cracked $13 million, but instead of being seen as a dud, it was thought by its admirers to be a great film that audiences just didn't find. Steve Jobs is an odd case, in that its grosses in initial release were impressive, and there's no sign people in those markets hated/turned on the film -- it's just that when it tried to expand to broad release, the mainstream market stayed away.

I never saw the film as a potential best picture winner (actually, the way the year's going, I don't see anything really filling that role), but I'd still imagine the major nominations (actor, supporting actress, adapted screenplay) should be locked in. A win will be tougher, and might depend on the critics -- if they go for Fassbender across the board (because there's no one else in the ballpark), he could become a default choice the way Forest Whitaker did for the similarly financially disappointing Last King of Scotland.

I don't see the Macbeth scenario in any case. Okri is right that Weinstein is treating it like an unwanted stepchild (and kudos for the Birnam Wood metaphor).

On the subject of "box office matters": conversely, Bridge of Spies is greatly enhanced by its excellent hold this weekend. I already had Mark Rylance as a sure nominee, and the film as a solid possibility, but now I'm wondering if it might slip into The Imitation Game slot: history, conventional enough for older voters, an across the board nominee.

[Okri]

The trades are portraying this as a "bomb" because of lackluster box office. I'm excited to see it based on the reviews provided by members here. But does this affect Fassbender's chances at an Oscar or even a nomination? This movie was supposed to be the front-runner in all categories before it actually opened but this flop will take a lot of wind out of its sails. And, for all we know, Fassbender's performance in Macbeth could be his nomination this year.

I know I'd nominate Fassbender for his VPL in Macbeth in that one scene alone.

Weinstein seems to be going out of his way to fuck with Macbeth, he's practically Birnam Wood

I am going to point out that Ashton Kutcher's Jobs movie didn't do much worse it's opening weekend.

[flipp525]

Weren't people saying the same thing after the first weekend of Michael Clayton?

Sure, it underperformed. They should be released wide one week earlier, but I think it's a safe bet for a boat load of nominations.

By boat load, do you mean 6-7?

[Sabin]

Weren't people saying the same thing after the first weekend of Michael Clayton?

Sure, it underperformed. They should be released wide one week earlier, but I think it's a safe bet for a boat load of nominations.

[flipp525]

While box office may affect the Best Picture race, acting awards usually don't depend on box office.

As I've been saying all along, Steve Jobs and Spotlight may win the critics' prizes, but Oscar is likely to go with something more mainstream for Best Picture. The acting awards are all up in the air at the moment.

They may be "up in the air" but I think that certain races are crystallizing and front-runners (ish?) are beginning to emerge.

[Big Magilla]

While box office may affect the Best Picture race, acting awards usually don't depend on box office.

As I've been saying all along, Steve Jobs and Spotlight may win the critics' prizes, but Oscar is likely to go with something more mainstream for Best Picture. The acting awards are all up in the air at the moment.

[OscarGuy]

That's precisely my reaction. The Academy doesn't like box office flops, but Fassbender could still pull off a nomination in a weak year... if this were his only performance. It isn't. I think Macbeth has far more dramatic capability and thus a better shot (especially now) of a nomination.