Steve Jobs

Excellent conversation film with a frenetic pace. I had to really exert a lot of energy and attention to fully catch everything. Otherwise, I generally love these biographical works from the pen of Aaron Sorkin. Who knows, maybe after Zuckerberg and Jobs, Gates will be next. It's also worth noting the uncovering of Steve Jobs' legacy, which shows that far more than an innovator, he was a design and marketing genius. It's also worth mentioning Jobs’ destructive egomania, where he often had no problem overlooking the key colleagues without whom the whole Apple rocket ship would never have gone as far. On the other hand, this is probably not terribly surprising, because every extremely intelligent person is strange in his or her own way. But it's undeniable that Steve Jobs’ legacy is substantial, and his gradual journey to becoming one of the most successful IT businessmen of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is quite interesting, to say the least. (06/02/2018)

A couple of years ago we had Jobs starring Ashton Kutcher, so Danny Boyle had to bet on other certainties besides the theme, and in my opinion that was mainly the well-chosen cast. Michael Fassbender gives a truly above-average convincing performance in the lead role, while his second Kate Winslet only confirms her strong acting qualities, of which we have been aware for two decades. The first half is rather slower and less intense, but in the second half everything starts to build up and the highlights are the heated dialogues between Fassbender, Winslet and Jeff Daniels. In short, it's more of a conversational drama revealing more facts around the myth of Steve Jobs. (01/02/2016)

I'm not an Apple freak and I don't even care much about their products. I don't know what gadgets, apps, or features they have, but I know a lot about Steve. Who doesn't? There are too many of these movies. But if you want to see one, see this one. Except for the ending, which didn't work for me, it's probably the best Jobs movie I've seen. Danny Boyle is still a class act. (30/01/2016)

Sorkin and Boyle are like left and right hands that have long since been stitched to a body to create a Frankensteinian monster that fundamentally vindicates the argument that wisdom and beauty cannot be in permanent opposition. Which, by the way, I have been proving with my own existence for some time now. The seemingly theatrical three-act plot, with its relentless deadlines stomped out by unkempt hamsters who can't wait to find out what useless, unmodifiable junk they'll let themselves get fleeced by Mac for this year, is instead a constant reminder that we're watching a movie. And not just with the fairly unnecessary format changes over the years, but above all Boyle-style editing or minimal repetition of shots. On the contrary, the characters are constantly moving and interacting with their surroundings. Themes are carried over from location to location. The characters' exalted dialogues are interspersed with those of the same characters in flashbacks, achieving, among other things, a double continuous gradation of the same theme (and the cynic may already be thinking Sorkin is overdoing it here). What’s more, when compared to Zuckerberg, for whom the screenwriter had rather a soft spot, given his zero-to-hero development in the world of the privileged, there seeps an undeniable contempt for the narcissistic sociopath who has won a grand mastery of promoting mediocrity through mere form. And with biopics, which mostly suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, that automatically warms the cockles. (08/03/2016)

They simply had to shoot this differently and focus on a family or on dialogues between some interesting characters; thus, in a way that was lacking in Silicon Valley or the movie Jobs. On the other hand, I don’t think that Steve Jobs deserves this many movies. Michael Fassbender and Danny Boyle might have showcased some proper filmmaking art, but completely in vain, in my opinion. (29/02/2016)