Steve Jobs

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)

An excellent Boyle, and even better Fassbender and the best Aaron Sorkin. A gripping barrage of dialogue from the life of a mega-successful, unscrupulous bastard that, despite its rather violently closed-minded frame of mind, stylishly represents Hollywood's ability to tell stories of great people and their personal destinies. The plot is clear even for a complete layperson, well edited and covering fifteen years of Jobs's life and career with great clarity. However, its cold academic verbosity made me tired at times, and if it weren't for all the excellent actors, it would have been hard to buy into the one-sided emotional ending. That said, still a delectable, smart and believable conversational drama, fulfilling at the same time the function of a great narrative film. (30/01/2016)

It's not about Jobs's many successes (failures) in Atari, Apple, NeXT or Pixar, so it's not a movie an about a visionary who without doubt influenced the Western world in many ways by them. It is a little more about Jobs, however it is not mainly focused on him, as an extremely interesting person, who combines a capable (willing to do what it takes) and in many respects genius and very intelligent "leader" who was able to sell his innovative vision like no other, with undeniable business skills and charming personality, as well as an arrogant and often unreasonably cruel and emotionally unstable manipulator suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder who does not hesitate to go over dead bodies even of those who are close to him. And that's the nicer side of his dark side. But by far the most it is about the simple relationship of a complicated personality to the world, colleagues, friends and above all about finding a way in life and about an unwanted daughter. It's typically "Sorkinian-style" movie. No doubt about that. However, this time he managed to avoid a frequent weak point of his movies in a very smart way; namely, that his characters theatrically recite and do not speak like real people. And so he immediately captured it as a kind of stylized theatrical performance based on fiction inspired by the reality showed in three acts and returning visits à la Dickens's Christmas Carol. What Honor did well is that, apart from the period format of the individual acts, he stays away from his habits and he completely relies on the frantic pace of Sorkin's energetic dialogs and excellent actors, which is far from just a hymn to the Fassbender-Winslet-Rogen trio. (12/11/2015)

Steve Jobs is a luxuriously crafted spectacle for attentive and knowledgeable viewers. A sophisticated choice of moments from the attractive backstage of Jobs’ work, comprehensively covering his personality in both his working and family life. The film is packed with excellent dialogue, so sophisticatedly cut in places that you cannot even take in all the information in one go. And each piece of this information is damn important for the resulting experience. The film’s complexity therefore increases with every repeated viewing, which happens once in a decade in contemporary cinema. Fassbender is inconspicuously brilliant. (03/12/2015)

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. (07/03/2016)