|
 Watched the film tonight. First, a warning: this film is heavily dramatized. It contains sequence upon sequence of Sorkin dialogue, which is to say likely not a single word in this movie was ever spoken in reality. I've read the book it's based on and to say the film is an adaptation is stretching it. It captures certain themes and vignettes of Jobs' life, but little attempt is made at portraying events faithfully. If you enter with that understanding, I think you'll like the film. The acting is impeccable and the dialogue is punchy. It's two hours of watching Fassbender look nothing like but act the hell out of Steve Jobs. Some scenes are practically perfect, such as the one with Jobs and Sculley in the empty dining room, intercutting between flashbacks and present day, scored spine-chillingly with a pipe organ. It doesn't do much to tear down the myth of Steve Jobs, so don't watch this film for that. But otherwise it's great entertainment.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
How is Fassbender's performance in it compared to, say, Shame? Does it have any Steve Jobs backschlong?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
If backschlong means penis, then no. But there's a really odd scene where Jobs takes off his socks and shoes and dips his feet in the toilet. Can't say I knew what to make of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
I'm really confused about this movie. Is it a sequel to the one that came out TWO years ago with Ashton Kutcher? Is this just some kind of, "yeah no gently caress that version, here's what really happened" or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:I'm really confused about this movie. Why would it be a sequel? It's the latter. It's not about him being awesome, it's about him being an rear end in a top hat (because he was).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Why would it be a sequel? It's the latter. It's not about him being awesome, it's about him being an rear end in a top hat (because he was). It's not the latter either, since none or almost none of the events and dialogue in the movie happened. It's more an exploration of a modern "American hero" by using myth instead of the factual events that bear them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Sense and Motion posted:It's not the latter either, since none or almost none of the events and dialogue in the movie happened. It's more an exploration of a modern "American hero" by using myth instead of the factual events that bear them. Would you make this same interpretation with American Sniper?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Would you make this same interpretation with American Sniper? I haven't seen American Sniper, so I'd rather not comment on the matter. I was just pointing out that Steve Jobs isn't a biopic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Writing a petition now for Steve Jobs Versus the American Sniper franchise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
cthulusnewzulubbq posted:Writing a petition now for Steve Jobs Versus the American Sniper franchise. Don't reveal the secret ending: They both die at the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
So wait... apple fanboys are buying a new version of the same thing they bought a couple of years ago? Color me loving surprised.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:So wait... apple fanboys are buying a new version of the same thing they bought a couple of years ago? Color me loving surprised. hahah goddamn. Steve Jobs 3.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
It's quite strange that there seems to be a backlash against this not being strictly true (which is fair) when everyone knew that would happen based on The Social Network, yet the only person who seemed to care about that one not being accurate was Zuckerberg himself. I'm still really looking forward to this, TSN blew me away and if SJ is comparably good then I'll enjoy every second of it. Is it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:It's quite strange that there seems to be a backlash against this not being strictly true (which is fair) when everyone knew that would happen based on The Social Network, yet the only person who seemed to care about that one not being accurate was Zuckerberg himself. Facebook users don't care about Zuckerberg. Apple users worship Jobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
I'm pumped for this, even though I kind of hate Sorkin and have no interest in Steve Jobs. I just love Danny Boyle, Michael Fassbender, and the apparently eternally lovely Kate Winslet that much, I guess. I'm a little surprised to see that Anthony Mantle isn't the cinematographer on this because it looks very much in the style he and Boyle have built up together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
The book was amazing, the film was poo poo. There is so much depth to the book, but the entire movie is surface garbage, most of which didn't happen. Where did the idea that Jobs created NeXT just to invent an operating system that Apple would eventually need come form? That was never in the book and I've never heard of it. I know it led to OS X, but that couldn't have been planned. He would have claimed credit for it in the book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
The movie is not a biography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:The movie is not a biography. So essentially it's a try at Citizen Kane but too lazy / eager to get asses into seats to bother with allusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Mr. BT posted:Where did the idea that Jobs created NeXT just to invent an operating system that Apple would eventually need come form? That was never in the book and I've never heard of it. I found the movie seriously entertaining at least, and I like to see Sorkin dialogue (i.e. arrogant rants) filtered through a character who is actually being portrayed as an arrogant, emotionally stunted rear end in a top hat as opposed to a wunderkind who is proven right at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
I was really looking forward to this movie and ended up really disappointed. I've been a huge Sorkin fan and this was my least favorite movie of his. Instead of focusing on the factual details, which just allows Sorkin smugly respond that the movie isn't a biography, I wanted to focus on other aspects. First of all, the entire movie was a two hour long exposition. There was no real plot, no real conflict, and very little resolution. The framing device of having Steve meet with the same 4 people who either ask him the same questions or ask for the same things made it seem like a reinterpretation of A Christmas Carol. Michael Fassbender was the redeeming quality of the movie. Seth Rogan was surprisingly good as Woz, but Kate Winslet was horrendous as Joanna Hoffman and Jeff Daniels needs to realize that Sorkin isn't doing him any favors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Variety is leading with a big headline proclaiming that this film has bombed, at least because Fassbender was leading it. Some analytics suggest he's not a big enough name for the picture. Maybe the real problem is they're spending 60 million dollars on a picture whose subject has both oversaturated the media and become irrelevant. This seems like the main reason why Black Mass is doing so much better -- they're both biopics (nominally), but Black Mass at least has a novel subject, untainted by lovely Ashton Kutcher-starring variants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Knew this movie was going to bomb when every single person who was close to Steve Jobs came out and said they tried really hard to get this movie canceled or not made. For what it's worth this movie has an average rating of 85% on rottentomatoes.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Oh drat, I guess we'll never get the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
I wish we would have gotten the Fincher version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Variety is leading with a big headline proclaiming that this film has bombed, at least because Fassbender was leading it. Some analytics suggest he's not a big enough name for the picture. quote:In fact, a study by Piedmont Media Research found that audiences’ interest in seeing “Steve Jobs” dipped after they found out Fassbender was headlining the drama This is absolutely insane to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
I think there are enough fans of Boyle, Sorkin and Fassbender respectively who will end up seeing this as it gets a wider release and internationally for this to make its money back. But people don't care enough about a Jobs movie for it to get an audience on that basis. Awards buzz could help it though
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
massive spider posted:This is absolutely insane to me. The Fassbender part isn't particularly surprising. He exploded among film enthusiasts with stuff like Shame but outside of the X-Men films I'm not sure he's ever really shown himself to be a leading guy. Edit: Honestly, headlining The Counselor, a movie which I love but completely bombed, is probably the worst choice in his career. Timby fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Timby posted:The Fassbender part isn't particularly surprising. He exploded among film enthusiasts with stuff like Shame but outside of the X-Men films I'm not sure he's ever really shown himself to be a leading guy. Excuse me, it sounds like somebody needs to watch Frank right the gently caress now. It's on Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
precision posted:Excuse me, it sounds like somebody needs to watch Frank right the gently caress now. It's on Netflix. Confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I find Steve Jobs' story fascinating in terms of the ideas he had and the way he left and returned to Apple and all that. I don't have much interest in seeing this movie though. I know enough from the book and interviews and things like Pirates of Silicon Valley. I never wanted to see the Kutcher movie either. I'm not sure who this movie is aimed at, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
It's aimed at Michael Fassbender fans and he's great in it. Thirding the suggestion for Frank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
In my opinion, knowing about the actual course of events makes this movie more enjoyable. You realize very early on that the filmmakers are only barely pretending this is an accurate biopic. Then you can treat it like the work of fiction it largely is and enjoy the writing, acting, and direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Awards buzz could help it though Could this movie really win any awards? The Oscars for example are not based on any sort of merit, but is a voting system among judges who sometimes don't even watch the movies they vote on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
I liked it. Sharp dialogue. Fassbender and Daniels were good. Didn't care much for Rogen. Story got a little too clean and cliched at the very end, but it was still well done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:It's aimed at Michael Fassbender fans and he's great in it. Frank is a better movie and probably has more ipods in it
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
This was loving fantastic. Jobs has been done to death, but this isn't concerned with being a biography so much as an exploration of why the myth of Jobs was compelling, why we care about factual accuracy or artificial figureheads. It manages to unpack so many of the distinct but entangled themes that have been incorporated into the myth, from the role of computation and accessibility, to the exploitation of creativity, to the judgement of accomplishment versus character, to the construction and presentation of character narratives themselves. Like Jobs' claim to be indifferent to whether he is disliked, the film seems indifferent to accuracy or realism, while at points suddenly obsessing with both to betray that the claim is unreliable. In this way it's very much a stage play, exaggerated in tone, overt about themes, but full of artifice that we are expected to question. The NeXT/OS thing illustrates this best; the film structures itself around the narrative that it was Jobs' plan all along, but we are expected to be dubious. Of course all this makes it a box office nightmare. The third act runs flat and feels like too many easy resolutions, but the first two are some of the best film Boyle's produced. The third act could be better on a second viewing, since like the NeXT thing there are plenty of subversive strings lying around. The whole thing is gorgeous, but that's a given with Boyle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
why would this movie get any oscar buzz? It doesnt even show the part where he dies of AIDS
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
massive spider posted:This is absolutely insane to me. I like Fassbender but he seemed like an odd choice to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:In my opinion, knowing about the actual course of events makes this movie more enjoyable. You realize very early on that the filmmakers are only barely pretending this is an accurate biopic. Then you can treat it like the work of fiction it largely is and enjoy the writing, acting, and direction. So like the Bruce Lee movie, Dragon!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
Complaining about the factual inaccuracies in this is like complaining about Lawrence of Arabia creating a heroic epic at the expense of historical accuracy -- it's not that it doesn't care about actual events, it's that we all know them and it doesn't want to let facts get in the way of the truth in the myth. In this sense it's a perfectly natural choice for Fassbender given his character in The Movie That Shall Not Be Named. It succeeds at doing what Lincoln failed spectacularly at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:47
|
|