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)

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. (28/02/2016)

I am not an Apple fanatic and their products don't really interest me much. I don't know what features, applications, and gadgets they have, but I know a lot about Steve. And who doesn't? There are too many movies about him. But if you want to watch one, watch this one. Except for the ending, which didn't sit well with me, it's probably the best film about Jobs that I've seen. Danny Boyle is simply amazing. (29/01/2016)

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. (07/03/2016)

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)