User Reviews

I've seen this film and the one starring Michael Fassbender, "Steve Jobs". The difference between the two is this - This film shows a great deal of Steve's' life, with a real accent on the mid to late 70s as Apple was being created. The Fassbender film only shows three specific scenes in Steve's life, but by the time the film is through, even though Fassbender does not even resemble Steve Jobs, you feel like you are looking right at him because of Fassbender's electrifying performance. In "Jobs" Kutcher may be made up to look and walk like Jobs, but I never feel like I am getting into the head of Steve Jobs.

What does this film do well? The first half of it captures the look and feel of early home computing in a totally realistic way - the kind of people who were involved, the way that they dressed, what early homemade personal computers in the 1970s looked like. What did they look like? It was like the first cars when they were called "horseless carriages" because that's what people AND the inventors understood as the old paradigm. The horse was being replaced with an engine and the rest of the car looked like carriages always had looked. So the earliest computers had switches and lights and sat in unattractive blue boxes that engineers thought were great, but the average person had no idea what to do with such a thing and didn't want one.

What did this film do poorly? I'd say Steve Wozniak is presented as a mere shadow of himself here. You never see the camaraderie or dynamic between himself and Jobs. The old Home Brew Club looked up to Wozniak, and when he presents the first "Apple" computer to them they just look bored and Woz looks scared.

Finally I come to Ashton Kutcher. Ashton Kutcher's problem is that he did one of his earliest roles so well and so long - that of mega screw up Kelso in the long running TV comedy "That 70's Show". He did it so well in fact that I ALWAYS see Kelso whenever I see Kutcher, no matter how well he is performing. In this film I kept waiting for his 70's Show girlfriend, alpha female attack dog Jackie, to come jumping out of a dark corner and start yelling at him and tell him what a screw up he is. Kutcher can't help this. I call it "Norman Bates Syndrome" - the same thing that happened to Anthony Perkins. No matter what role Anthony Perkins took after Psycho, no matter how well he did it, he was always Norman Bates. You just kept waiting for him to hit somebody over the head and start preparing the body to add to his collection of stuffed animals/people.

This is not a terrible film on Jobs. Nobody does a bad job, and it is interesting from a history of personal computing perspective. I'd say see this one for the history, and watch the Fassbender rendition in "Steve Jobs" to get a feel for the essence of the man, who will always remain somewhat of an enigma.

Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) is shown starting from his college drop out years in 1974 to working at Atari in 1976. He joins up with Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) bringing Woz's computer to Homebrew. With Woz, they start Apple in his garage. Former Intel guy Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney) becomes their investor.

I'm sure Steve Jobs fans have a thousand mistakes they like to point out and a thousand more complaints about his douchie portrayal. I have a more simpler complaint. This is no more than a simple made-for-TV movie. Ashton Kutcher is doing more mimicry than actually taking on the persona. I actually put most of this on the shoulders of director Joshua Michael Stern. There are too many Jobs speeches and pontifications. It's an easy way to copy Steve. Maybe it's too easy. It needs to go deeper.

It must be difficult for an actor to convincingly portray a world famous person whose death only two years before means that his image is still relatively fresh in the public consciousness. It must also be pretty tough for filmmakers to portray the life of an iconic figure in the space of two hours. I give "Jobs" (PG-13, 2:02) credit for accomplishing one of those two tasks. (In addition, there was the pressure of knowing that another version of the film was being written by the highly-esteemed Aaron Sorkin.) When it comes to portraying the legend who co-founded Apple computers, Ashton Kutcher does an excellent… Jobs. The actor uses his natural resemblance to the computer genius and adds just enough of Steve Jobs' voice, mannerisms and walk to help us (mostly) forget that we're watching Ashton Kutcher, but he doesn't overdo it by trying to do a perfect impression which could have crossed over into caricature. This film represents some of Kutcher's best work to date, but not quite award worthy.

Unfortunately, the script isn't strong enough to give us the whole picture of Steve Jobs' remarkable life. As the film traces the rise, the fall, and then the beginning of the resurrection of Apple the computer brand, the focus is divided too much between the company and the man. If you know more about the life of Steve Jobs, you'll be disappointed when you realize you're not getting to see the full arc of his life. The film would have been better off calling itself "Apple", but even then, I would have found it lacking.

This film reminded me of "The Social Network", but without the same level of entertainment in its storytelling. The supporting actors, including Josh Gad as Apple's other founder, Steve Wozniak, Dermot Mulroney, as initial Apple financier and eventual CEO Mike Markkula, and Matthew Modine as John Scully, Markkula's successor as CEO, show the passion that those closest to the company have for Apple, but the film is supposedly about Steve Jobs. While the script does touch on some of Jobs' personal life, it seems much more concerned with the company that he helped start. "Jobs" may give us a measure of the man, but doesn't do the best job at telling his STORY. Doing the best job I can as a reviewer (while still doing my other… jobs), I give this one a "B".

It is somewhat ironical that the man who always signed his name in the lower case 'steven p. jobs' has the movie in his name titled in capital JOBS. For me this was the most awaited movie of the year, more so because of having read the biography a couple of times. The ironies however does not end with the case of the font but the perfectionist he was, I am sure if among us today he would have wanted some (major) iterations in the movie before his actual story came out to the public. A movie reaches out to a much wider audience exponentially than a book and those of you who have read the book should agree with me that movie did not do complete justice to Jobs biopic.

Joshua Michael Stern who is known for directing dramas, has concentrated more on the dramatic side of Jobs rather than the genius his was. He has failed to explain the reason behind his outbursts, his mad passion for perfection, and the primary reason for the personality that was the Steve Jobs. I would not dwell into the particular events but Stern could have shown the cause and consequence for the milestones he achieved. Whether it was shortage of time or bad script writing the movie would fail to connect with audience who do not much about Jobs. Moreover, important events which made Jobs what he is like the creation of NeXT, the buying of Pixar and his fight with cancer are completely missing.

Ashton Kutcher has come a long way from portraying the stupid kid in That 70's show to portraying one of the geniuses of our generation. He is eerily similar to the original Steve Jobs and full marks to him for taking on the nuances, the body language and the talking style of the Apple founder. The jaw line was perfect and as a young Jobs he was flawless. The script could have given him more to showcase his acting prowess but sadly the whole movie cracked around there. I am sure Jobs family would also share the view of Kutcher doing a brilliant "JOB".

The only other character worth mentioning is that of Mike Marrkula played by Dermot Mulroney a brilliant actor with an equally brilliant performance. Matthew Modine, James Woods, John Getz and others are just supporting the main man as the in his real life it was all about himself. The music is good and you get to hear some famous Bob Dylan songs in the movie, as Steve was a big Dylan fan all this life.

Even though for me Steve Jobs life has been a 5/5, I had expected a much better product from the production and so would have Jobs. A 3/5 from me sadly for the movie and for all the Jobs and Apple fans this is a must watch. However I would suggest you read the book before going to the movie. Alternatively, if you have seen the movie and not the read the book, now is the time to pick it up and do it.

Steve Jobs(R.I.P) October,5th,2011.

jOBS is not a biography movie like Citizen Kane, Gandhi, The Last Emperor, The Last King of Scotland, Malcolm X, and Gladiator. But it takes all the genre clichés from these movies, while following the same story structure of Social Network.

Since I mentioned David Fincher's movie Social Network, I will start my review with the major problem in jOBS: Considering Social Network was an aptly marketed everyone's hero style of an average business-drama movie, in order to market a Steve Jobs life story appropriately, this wasn't the right choice. The cause of this marketing errors are the trailer, the poster with Ashton Kutcher on it, and the movie itself with Ashton Kutcher starring in it.

Then what is jOBS about? jOBS is just a simple telling of a person's epoch-making achievement like Schindler's List, Spartacus, Raging Bull, Braveheart, Papillon, The Pianist, and even David Lnych's The Straight Story. jOBS has more than a few things in common with those movies including the pain of sacrificing your beloved ones in order to succeed in your career, including similar character traits, similar ethical beliefs, similar moral decisions. jOBS is only a brief telling of what Steve Jobs gave to the Macintosh computers, just like what Oscar Schindler gave to Jews, and what Braveheart gave to Scotland. You can't expect to see the birth and death of Steve Jobs in this movie. This is not a biopic, instead it's a drama, poorly marketed good business-drama.

There are both strong and weak points in the technical side of jOBS. As a start, having no narration is a strong point, yet having not explained why Steve Jobs dropped out from college is crucially a weak point. Ashton Kutcher takes his girlfriend and goes behind bushes in the country and smokes weed. Then we get to figure it out that Steve Jobs has dropped out from college because he smoked weed and got his girlfriend pregnant. Refusing the birth of his first child due to his busy work schedules, Steve Jobs character has been made more weaker and weaker minute after minute. There is certainly a rule of character growth followed in this film, but none of this film's audiences have really bought that character growing incidents.

This is an average business-drama movie, set in the world of entrepreneurial minds. You're lonely, you always keep a positive mind but always looking for a person to trust, you are goal-oriented, you take maximum risks for every little achievements in your life, you are a reliable friend to your colleagues but they are always afraid of you, and you see every step in your life as a competition with someone else's steps in their lives...

This is a strong premise that killed the sense of making a Steve Jobs movie to honor his memory. This movie should have been made in 1997, when Steve Jobs have become the de facto chief CEO of Macintosh. And this movie could have been titled "Think Differently" as this is what it is only about. If this has been a movie called "Think Differently" made in 1997, then it could earn some recognition. Now people would come to you and ask "What did Steve Jobs do for the last 14 years of his life as a CEO in Apple?"

Steve Jobs isn't a nice guy... he uses people like they are toilet paper... and he is a taker. It's a great set-up for a slammin' movie. Unfortunitely, this movie seems incomplete and without heart. More accurately, most of the scenes seem incomplete, disjointed and pointless. It all adds up to nothing.

Problem #1) You don't care for Jobs and you leave the theater not knowing Jobs. There are few emotional moments in the movie - except when you want to spit on him. Fire this person unnecessarily; deny that loyal employee well-earned benefit; use your wealth to destabilize the company... it all describes someone you are glad you don't know personally or professionally.

Problem #2) The movie is paced slower than my Aunt Minnie in a walker. I've seen paint dry faster.

Problem #3) The acting... maybe I should say the affectations. Kutcher over-emphasized Jobs odd gate and stance as if it meant something. But why distract us with an antalgic back, hyper-extension of the knees, increased lordosis and anterior propulsion? It distracted from the story and took me out of the movie every time.

Problem #4) The editing was horrible. Scenes would start and finish randomly - with no emotional content. Many scenes had no relationship to the structure of the movie - taking valuable time and adding little to nothing; disjointed would be too nice of a word.

Problem #5) The strange arc of the story-line ended before it began in earnest. The writing didn't explain how the apple II was able to sustain the many, many years of subsequent failures. Do corporations really build stockholders via "image", not performance? Metaphysically, I know that untalented a-holes who use, abuse and throw people away deserve to suffer. But we didn't see suffering. We see a fabulously wealthy person, whose emotional system was M.I.A, slide through life on the efforts of others.

There is no teaching moment in this movie. There is no emotional content. There are no memorable lines or moments. This isn't a movie; it feels more like revenge, cold and pointless.

I've had already read the entire biography of Steve Jobs written by Walter Isaacson before watching this movie so I felt that many, many, many essential details were missing in this movie which is understandable because Steve Jobs' life cannot be explained in 2 or 3 hours.

It was like a short summary and good for somebody who just want to know who Steve Jobs was.

However, if you want to go know in depth about Steve Jobs then go for the book and trust me, Steve Jobs is worth digging about. You'll love this man.

Still, this movie is great for those not interested in reading long biographies.

But I'm telling you, this movie misses a lot of major details without which the movie is totally incomplete and chances are you might misjudge Steve Jobs.

Joshua Michael Stern's "Jobs" is like an assembly line for the best moments in the career of Steve Jobs, but seriously lacking in depth, and without much significance. It is a truly unremarkable biopic of the "master of innovation" as you could possibly imagine. "Jobs" follows an overly safe, unimaginative course that clocks in at a tiresome 122 minutes. The storytelling is painfully straightforward, covering only the principal events of his professional trials and tribulations, and providing little else beyond what is already public knowledge.

Developing his imagination for computer programming at Atari, Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) brings in his friend Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to help with the hardware aspect, forming a partnership that would soon lead to the founding and development of Apple Computers, a force within the industry throughout the 1980s. Steve is not prepared for the financial demands and the ruthless business mentality, and is eventually forced out of the company he began, only to return in the 1990s with a fresh game plan on how to bring Apple back into the public consciousness, and to dominate the industry once again.

"Jobs" is a biopic with a very narrow focus, and without any sense of risk or adventure. It is so intent on covering Jobs' entire corporate career, that it simply reduces his personal life to a footnote. Stern completely glosses over Jobs' personal life, which is essential to any self-respecting biopic. The entire production feels rushed and slapped together simply to benefit from being the first one out of the gate.

To his credit, Kutcher puts forth a good effort, and he undeniably looks the part of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately, Ashton always looks like he is trying too hard to play the part, and never fully becomes the character he's portraying. His limitations on the big screen prove to be a major liability. He has developed a screen persona as likable character, which has served him well with numerous TV sitcoms. Not so much with movies.

What emerges is a movie that has "a made for TV" feel, which depicts a self-absorbed creep who stabs everyone in the back to simply to get his way that goes on for two plus hours. A thoroughly unsatisfying tribute, and we are still left none the wiser as to what made "The Father of the Digital Revolution" beyond what we already know.

Apple is currently the highest net worth company in the world and to own any of the Apple gadgets has become a status symbol. Steve Jobs is an idol, a revolutionary and an inspiration to the millions of people who want to change the world. After his death, his legendary status grew even more (as it always does with passed away celebrities), so it is perfectly reasonable that there were high expectations for this movie. People were expecting a grand masterpiece of epic proportions about a man who many want to relate to and who many want to be.

Unfortunately, the movie took a slightly different turn and the result of this can be seen on the IMDb movie score. This movie is not an epic journey of a strange protégé who eventually achieved everything there was to achieve and was carried on the arms of a cheering crowd at the end, followed by the end credits. NO! This is a movie about Jobs - about his personality, about his decisions, about his victories and about his failures. It is a cruel representation of what you have to go through in this world to achieve the status that he now has.

It's a movie about a troubled hipster who wanted to learn and to achieve something, but hated the system into which the young are thrown into. He dropped out of College but still attended some classes, he got into fights at work because he would yell at his coworkers that they were not doing their job, he took other peoples ideas, remade them into a story and sold them with his speeches and he wanted all. He was stubborn, he always wanted the impossible and here comes the part that made him a legend: he always got the impossible out of people.

Eventually he was driven from his company, he made bad calls, bad decisions, bad products, but later came back and dominated the computer scene again. He probably had more bad moments than good, but it's the good ones that count...and it's the good ones that changed the world.

The people didn't get what they wanted...they didn't get a people's hero nor the man that was always right. And no one wants to see a movie about a man who nobody liked half of the movie...but it is how he was and you have to accept that.

Ashton Kutcher's portrayal was also quite good and it seems that all the comedy movies and series that he has done have earned him a title of a bad actor, so you will hear a lot people saying this was a miss cast. Don't believe this people: go see the movie and make up your own mind.

So don't be discouraged by the low IMDb ranking and see this movie with expectations of a great movie about a man who was an inventor, a visionary, a man who changed the world, but was still only that: a man, nothing more, nothing less.

P.s. Don't expect to see any modern products in this movie. At the beginning, you will only briefly get to see the first generation Ipod, while other products are all the ones from the era before 1996. The movie actually ends in 1996, so many are disappointed that the movie did not show the era of Ipod's, Ipad's, Iphone's and Macbook's.

Ashton Kutcher isn't exactly the best actor but I don't think he was a bad choice for Steve Jobs. He literally looks like him unlike Michael Fassbender. Josh Gad was also a good choice for Steve Wozniak. I understand this film is known for its historical inaccuracies, but I was still able to watch this film regardless.

This Feelgood tragedy of the century isn't worth your money. Why the hell did they even make this movie in the first place!? Were there not enough documentaries and TV shows about Apple and Steve Jobs!? Did we really need a butchered version featuring Ashton Kutcher. They spent 8 and a half million dollars making a movie about a guy who already had a lot of movies already Why is Steve Jobsis portrayed here as some sort of hero? It just makes me so mad to think that they could get away with making something like this Spend your 14 dollars and get something to eat while you watch Pirates of Silicon Valley, a much better and much more accurate story of Steve Jobs and Apple's beginnings

A critic from "Globe and Mail" wrote about "Jobs", saying, "If Jobs had been a producer on Jobs, he would have sent it back to the lab for a redesign." Well congratulations, Mr. Lacey. Screenplays aren't written in labs, so jokes on you.

I don't truly fancy myself as a film critic, only that I wish to either be making films or professionally critiquing them one day. I write this to say that I find myself at odds with the majority of critics again. This is taking me back to "The Lone Ranger" days, friends.

I first heard of "Jobs" it was from friends who were going to be attending Sundance Film Festival this past January. Why would a film that was selected for the prestigious Sundance Film Festival and subsequently purchased for national distribution fare so poorly with critics? A whopping 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. Again, I found myself fighting for Ashton Kutcher, playing the public beloved Steve Jobs.

Now, I didn't know Steve Jobs. I can only assume 99% of the viewing audience of "Jobs" was in the same boat I'm in. I was completely unaware of his perfectionism–which makes total sense now–and I also didn't know he was this temperamental. That being said, Kutcher is very strong here. In fact, I haven't seen him at this level since 2004′s "The Butterfly Effect" a depressing film about the impact of cause and effect. Kutcher plays an extremely convincing Steve Jobs; the highlight for me was simply watching him walk about the workplace, hunched over shoulders and all.

After viewing 'true story' films like this, I am immediately forced to the internet to read the real life account of the situation. In this case, writer Matt Whiteley seems to have done quite reasonably here. I read stories of Whiteley reading through countless transcripts and interviews with Jobs, as well as conducting plenty of interviews himself. Rookie as he may be, without another script to his name on IMDb, Whiteley does his darndest to portray Jobs as well as possible.

"Jobs" follow Steve through his early days in college and up until his reinstatement as CEO of Apple. The film opens with the original unveiling of the first generation iPod. Sure it looks like metal brick that could bludgeon a skull open, but the audience has never seen anything like it. More than that, the audience is mostly inspired simply by Steve's presence at the press conference. This is a man who demands respect from his peers and employees without even asking for it. This is a man who has never given a single rip about what anyone thinks and is absolutely determined to get an idea formulated in his head onto paper and then physically created and defined. Kutcher is truly awe-inspiring to watch on-screen. Sure he's an ass, but for some reason, we really enjoy him, and to another extent, we feel as if we might know the real Steve Jobs at some basic level, and as a result of that, we really start to miss him.

Kutcher is surrounded by a wonderful supporting cast including Josh Gad as Steve Wozniak, Dermot Mulroney as Mike Markkula, and plenty of other wonderful actors. Granted, "Jobs" doesn't quite make the mark at some areas, and we are left wondering what happened over the five-year time period we missed out on. We want to know more about his family life. We want to know how he dealt with having a child.

Overall, "Jobs" is incredibly inspiring. Even though Steve seems more like a tool factory than only a tool, his constant hard work is thrilling to watch. I could only hope that audiences feel a slight nudge to pursue their dreams after viewing "Jobs." If the quality of the film deters your inspiration, the least "Jobs" can do is to remind you that Steve was a man who stopped at nothing to complete his goals. Steve was a real man, not just a movie character, and despite his unfortunate passing, he has left a huge impact both the world of technology, but also in marketing and business as well.

I found this movie to be an informative and entertaining telling of the story of Steve Jobs and the start of Apple.

The picture portrayed of Apple was unrelentingly positive, so at times the movie felt somewhat like an extended Apple advert. The picture portrayed of Steve Jobs was realistic, so we see both his good and bad sides. Few punches are pulled about what Jobs was really like. (However, perhaps this is the sort of thing that every successful man has to do on the way to the top.) Kutcher was well cast and played the role rather well, I would say. The scene that sticks in my mind in particular is his blistering telephone call with Bill Gates.

If I have any criticism, it's that the movie was more or less structured as a straightforward biography, almost like a docu-drama. It felt a little superficial and by-the-book. Despite the thorough coverage of Jobs's philosophy, the movie didn't seem to have enough to say about Jobs's true internal world. We are left to wonder why he was such an a*shole.

I was sorry when the movie ended (before the final years). I think the current score of 5.5 is too low. The movie is worth about 6.5, and it has enough merit for the score to be rounded up.

I watched the movie with my girlfriend and we both really enjoyed. There is no question it could've made better, there are yet plenty of nice shots and sequences which are worth watching them.

The plot is OK, actors are fine too. In some sequences, you feel it is over-exaggerated by Ashton's acting. He did his best to play Steve role, in my opinion, it's convincing. The disadvantage of the movie is, to me, it is sort of Apple movie than Steve Jobs. It is about how Apple formed, and how Steve created Apple in the first place, and how he glamorously came back to his company after a while.

I highly recommend the movie for whom want to get inspirations, I believe its good enough.

The first of what will surely be many biopics to come of one of the 20th century's greatest innovators, 'Jobs' only draw is being first out of the gate. Yes, if you haven't yet been acquainted with the tumultuous early years of the Apple founder, then this perfunctory retelling will probably be as good an introduction as any; but everyone else who is familiar with the story will be disappointed with this overly simplistic portrayal of a complex man whose ambition was both his greatest gift as well as his most significant stumbling block. Beginning in 2001 when he unveiled his masterpiece, the iPod, to rapturous applause, Stern and his first-time feature screenwriter Matt Whiteley rewind the clock thirty years ago to 1971 when Jobs was a student at Reed College, Portland. An LSD trip, a journey to India and a brief stint at Atari later, Jobs teams up with his buddy, self-taught engineering wiz Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), to build Apple computers in the former's parents' Los Altos garage. Jobs had the inspired idea to combine a typewriter with a TV, and the Apple II was born - but not without the funding from entrepreneur and former Intel engineer Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney). To find a dramatic hook, Whiteley predictably focuses on the most pivotal turning point in Jobs' life, as Jobs' launch of the Macintosh computer in 1984 sparks off an internal feud with his CEO John Scully (Matthew Modine) and the rest of the Board (including J.K. Simmons' Arthur Rock) that leads to his ouster and the company's subsequent decline. Of course, Jobs makes a return to the flailing company in 1996 upon then-CEO Gil Amelio's (Kevin Dunn) request, returning Apple to its roots in the personal computer market and paving the way for its success today. Is there anything this dramatization adds to that true story which you cannot glean from any text-based account? Hardly; if anything, it merely puts a face to the disbelief, disappointment, indignation and gratification Jobs must have felt when he was kicked out of Apple and then presented with the golden opportunity to rebuild the company into the vision he had for it at the onset. The storytelling is pretty straightforward, covering the important events of his professional ups and downs but providing little details beyond what is already public knowledge. Admittedly, to expect more would probably be a tall order, since the man has passed away and the others who would be familiar with these past events did not participate in the making of this film - including the real-life Woz, who in fact has been a vocal critic of the movie. But more disappointingly, Stern completely glosses over Jobs' personal life and personality, both of which are essential to any self-respecting biopic - after all, how can any biography be complete without an insight into the person whose life story is being told? Whiteley's episodic script is utterly superficial in this regard - and we're not talking about Jobs' drive, determination or innovation. Instead, Jobs' crucial relationship with Wozniak is thinly sketched, not only because it omits how they met and their chemistry, but also because it barely explains why Woz quit Apple dissatisfied with the direction the company was heading and the person that Jobs had become. Other aspects of Jobs' character are given short shrift - for instance, we see Jobs dumping his pregnant girlfriend Chris-Ann Brennan (Ahna O'Reilly) and refusing to recognise his newly born daughter as his own early on, but are given little explanation how and why he settles down and turns into a family man later. If the scripting is a part of the problem, then the acting is yet another. Chiefly, while bearing more than a passing resemblance to Jobs, Ashton Kutcher is not up to the part. To his credit, one can tell Kutcher has put in a lot of effort into the role, emulating his character's awkwardly hunched posture as well as to some degree his voice and gestures; unfortunately Kutcher always looks like he is playing the part, and never quite becoming the character he is supposed to portray. It is an affected performance, and Kutcher's limitations as a dramatic actor are all too apparent here. In fact, the supporting acts steal the show, especially Mulroney's solid turn as Jobs' ally turned adversary. Most of all, Stern's film rarely possesses the qualities that characterised Jobs - it isn't bold enough to offer a balanced, or critical even, perspective of the man (including his more unsavoury personal aspects), nor unique enough to provide a distinctive look at the early years of his storied career. What emerges is simply bland and uninspired filmmaking, which in the context of Jobs' illustrious and intricate life, is an unsatisfying tribute to a man who spent his time being exactly the opposite.

I am a big fan of Steve Jobs. I loved his book and enjoyed the movie. Was I blown away, no. Was it inspirational, yes. Read his book and you will be even more impressed. Kutcher does a great job at impersonating Jobs and you can tell that he studied him very closely. I wish that Jony Ive's character would of played a bigger role. A sequel would be great to get into the story of the iPhone seeing that the movie stops after the introduction of the first iPod. Jobs' life is so complex that this could of been a trilogy of movies and there still wouldn't be enough on screen. Steve wanted everything to be so perfect down to the unboxing of his products, I wish there was more uplifting stories about the little things. He wasn't always neurotic.

This movie easily ranks among the movies I most disagree with the critics on.

Why they HATE it?

BIAS

It's painfully obvious that their was a "Kutcher bias." The last thing nerds and GROUP-THINK-CRITICS are going to be open to is a model-turned-actor taking on the role of one of the most accomplished men of his generation, esp. so soon after his death.

Not only did he nail the role, but he took the responsibility so seriously, and did such a great job, that he actually paid homage to the much deserving Jobs.

ALL BIAS.

I admit. I was bias too...

...until I saw how much Kutcher embodied Jobs. I couldn't believe he could do it. I didn't think he had it in him. I was wrong.

This is coming from a cinephile EXTREMELY sensitive to poor acting, and yet Kutcher sold me--hook, line, and sinker.

Not only did Kutcher nail the role, but it was a DAMN GOOD MOVIE.

I've seen it twice now, and I look forward to the next time. It is inspiring, and it engenders that sense of magic and possibilities so few movies do.

It is just a great, gripping, story. I was "in it" every step of the way. I didn't see Kutcher. I saw Jobs, and one hell of a ride.

Let's see, well it was worth seeing for me; however, I wished I had waited till is came out on television -- Because it was really a "movie of the week"... do they still have those? To say this movie was weak on facts would imply they got it ALL wrong - Yes, they made some things up doing the "hollywood thing" but they didn't even attempt half the history so they couldn't have gotten it ALL wrong! Parts of his life missing were glaring!

They glossed over years -- Heck decades at points, concentrating on Apple more than Steve Jobs in my opinion... maybe a better name would have been "Apple & jobs - Some of the Years"!

Wait for the movie to hit your TV and know you will still be missing more than half the story!