Steve Jobs | October 9 limited, expands Oct 16, wide on Oct 23 | Teaser Trailer Page 9

[DAJK]

I want a movie.

Phase 2

[AniNate]

I'm sure this will be good, but I'd rather Boyle be doing material more suited to his kinetics

[filmlover]

This looks great. And worlds better than that Ashton Kutcher SNL parody stretched out to feature length.

[Asyulus]

This could win an award.

[Boxx93]

Nothing against Fassbender, he is a brilliant actor. But Cristian Bale would have been a much better choice as Jobs.

[Jack Nevada]

I know you're supposed to hate Aaron Sorkin right now but I cant wait for this shit. Looks great.

[RobinHood26]

Looks great to me, loving some of them Dutch angles

[AniNate]

Nothing against Fassbender, he is a brilliant actor. But Cristian Bale would have been a much better choice as Jobs.

 

Bryan Cranston over all

[Halba]

looks well done. oscar fare. fassbender's one of the best actors of his generation (with leo, hardy, jake g, bale, mcconaughey)

[Asyulus]

Jobs is semi bald, but not Bale

[dashrendar44]

Jobs is semi bald, but not Bale

[Jake Gittes]

I know you're supposed to hate Aaron Sorkin right now but I cant wait for this shit. Looks great.

 

He's really become a much better screenwriter than TV writer. 

[antovolk]

@patrickcdevitt

Just saw Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs. They didn't have an embargo for it. Boyle has made his masterpiece.

https://twitter.com/patrickcdevitt/status/620771533733167104

@SwedishLincoln

Steve Jobs is Danny Boyle's fucking masterpiece. Michael Fassbender IS Steve Jobs. Best Picture 2016.

https://twitter.com/SwedishLincoln/status/620805093588402176

@awards_watch

More on Steve Jobs: "MVP was Aaron Sorkin's script" "Fassbender captivating" "Kate Winslet nailed her role" "Editing was sharp and showy"

https://twitter.com/awards_watch/status/620791673073762304

Inside word on @SteveJobsFilm: "Oscar friendly. Very funny/light tone. Winslet/Fassbender...easy noms. Even Rogen. Last 15-20m messy."

https://twitter.com/awards_watch/status/620787090419159042

:clap:

http://back-of-the-bus.tumblr.com/post/124033800758/just-saw-steve-jobs

Just saw “Steve Jobs”.

Before the movie started, I saw someone taking a seat across the aisle. I told my friend I thought he was an actor but I couldn’t remember his name. At some point it dawned on me that it was Danny Boyle, the director!

The dialogue and rhythm of the writing felt familiar to me. I noticed the walk-talk (or is it walk/talk) technique and I said to myself, “Self, this feels like Sorkin.” Well, Aaron Sorkin wrote and and he was at the screening.

Overall, I think it is a very good movie that will be remembered at the end of the year. Fassbender is outstanding. Winslet is brilliant and almost unrecognizable. Jeff Daniels is memorable. Seth Rogan is excellent.

I have a few quibbles with the film and wish it covered other parts of his life. I think it focused on Steve Jobs the man and not how he changed the worlds of animation, music and publishing. This was the first screening so I’m sure it will be edited before its release, but it was definitely worth my time.

The movie is good though I didn't find it stellar. The film is very Sorkin as it all centers around fast paced and snappy dialogue. The film is actually quite humorous and the audience was laughing pretty regularly during. Personally I felt the film dragged in portions, chiefly the middle third, and was at times bogged down by the excessive business/tech/legal-ese. I feel Fincher would've been a great fit because the frenetic parts with the rapid editing and quick music (such as the opening scene) were among my favorite scenes. There were also some excessively corny/cliched/schmaltzy bits surrounding the daughter (which is the major plot line of the film besides the business launch). I was reminded a few times of the Pitt-daughter relationship in Moneyball which I also found overly saccharine. The final scene is a rapprochement between Jobs and daughter and felt very trite/pat; at the same time I think typical moviegoers would like this scene because it "wrapped" up the movie/central relationship in a nice and emotional way (my friend who attended with me felt this was one of the best scenes). The film has only about three of four settings and is essentially a series of conversations between Jobs + various business partners or family members, walking in and out of rooms (my friend also compared it to Birdman in this sense of being very "talky" and involving few scenery changes).

The acting is good on the whole - Fassbender is good and his accent is fine and stable throughout. He has some good material to work with, many monologues, speeches, arguments. In the final third of the film he pretty well resembles the Jobs that the public is most familiar with (black shirt, jeans, glasses, hair, smiling demeanor). Overall he does a good job as the lead figure in every scene and at holding the film together. Winslet is essentially a co-lead as she is only missing from a few select scenes but she also does a good job. The chemistry between those two is strong and most of the film's humor comes from their exchanges. I felt her E. Euro accent became noticeably more pronounced in the final third of the film but it wasn't overly distracting. Her character is a pretty good/likable one as she is strong and focused, shows some emotional depth, but is also funny and provides regular comic relief. Rogen's role is shorter than I thought, maybe about 15 mins spread across three scenes. I felt he was fine in the role; two of his scenes were pretty much regular conversation with Jobs while his final scene was a loud argument with Jobs. His role didn't call for much and I wasn't too impressed with what he had anyway. Daniels was better than Rogen imo as I felt he was simply the more commanding actor and his role was somewhat more dynamic across his two or three scenes. Waterston is okay but her character is extremely one note, sulky etc.

I'm curious to read others' thoughts but my guess is the film will have a good/not great reception (like 70s MC) and I would guess its award potential will be limited to acting (Fassbender and Winslet; I can't see Rogen happening unless the film is a big deal and no one else has a chance) and writing, but I feel these may be borderline contenders in those categories, largely dependent on the strength of those fields. Personally I don't see Fassbender's role as a winning one as it isn't actually as transformative as most that win it (look at recent winners - Redmayne, McConaughey, DDL, Firth etc, all much showier whereas Fassbender bears an acceptable physical/social resemblance but the role mostly consists of prolonged conversations, no significant crying or deglamming). There aren't many techs of note - the editing is good in parts and sometimes flashy, ditto Boyle's direction, and production values are fine but none of these are of much to speak of imo.

Some thoughts from the screening...

- MVP of the film was Aaron Sorkin's script. It really balanced the dramatic moments with the dry wit and humor quite well. It was a much funnier film than I was expecting with Fassbender and Winslet getting a lot of laughs throughout.

- I thought Fassbender was captivating. I think this was very much a stretch for him given the heavy Sorkin dialogue and fast pace, but he really captured the spirit of Jobs even if he didn't necessarily look or talk like him (though the resemblance was better in the third act).

- Kate Winslet was a breath of fresh air and nailed her role. Not sure why people were criticizing her accent when the trailer was first released--it was flawless. She struck all the right chords. I would've never known it was her in the first two acts if you hadn't told me beforehand. A real physical transformation for her. And yes, I think the paper throw/toss is her Oscar scene, although it's the monologue she gives right after that moment.

- Seth Rogen generated chuckles from the audience when he first appeared without saying a word. Not sure how to interpret that. I didn't really take him seriously at first, but he had a few standout moments. I actually liked Jeff Daniels more. He had an amazing scene in the second act opposite Fassbender. It was really striking and memorable, to me at least. Katherine Waterston was pretty one-note, but I'm not sure a better/different actress could've done anything else with the role. It's thankless in the way it was written.

- Didn't realize how much of a focus Jobs and his daughter Lisa would be in the film. That definitely humanized Jobs a lot throughout the film, especially the end. All three actresses were quite good. I will say, as has been mentioned by others, they kind of lost me at the end. It felt like a completely different film. It was schmaltzy and a little bit too cutesy. They could've taken that down a few notches, and they definitely need to ditch the Coldplay song. So out of place.

- I didn't mind the editing. I thought it was sharp and showy. I'm sure it will look even better when the film is fully complete. Boyle did a nice job and I think he's absolutely in the conversation for a nomination. Is he Fincher? No. Is Fassbender Bale? No. But you take the hand you're dealt and deal with it. This was a solid picture that I think will do great business at the box office and I'm sure Hollywood will embrace aspects of the film.

- I saw Danny Boyle and Scott Rudin. Missed Aaron Sorkin.

Could use a little bit of editing and looks like they're still cutting it. 3 act structure is unique- pretty much like a play. Good acting performances, maybe screenplay nom for Sorkin. I much preferred Social Network. Fassbender was really good, Rogen was really good but it took me a few minutes to get past it being Seth Rogen if that makes sense- i mean the audience laughed the second he showed up i think for the same reason. Some of the scenes with Jeff Daniels ran a little too long. Felt like the 3rd act was paced the best. I'd compare it to Lincoln in the sense that it felt very much like something that could easily have been a play but I enjoyed this more.

Edited July 14, 2015 by antovolk

[WrathOfHan]

Anyone know what the runtime is? 15 minutes for Rogen seems pretty low.

[Jonwo]

I'm assuming it's 90-100 minutes as each of the three scenes is 30 minutes long. 

[Gopher]

I had a friend at the screening who really disliked it. Called it a lesser Social Network. Said the script is weak and some of Boyle's direction is strange/inconsistent. And that there are Coldplay songs which STOP IT WITH THE COLDPLAY SORKIN GEEZ. 

 

More reviews here, most of them good - http://letterboxd.com/film/steve-jobs/

Edited July 14, 2015 by Gopher

[Ethan Hunt]

I adore The Social Network to pieces

[Jonwo]

The film's not out until October so they've got time to fix some issues.

[TStechnij]

I've heard more Moneyball, less Social Network. It is apparently more more lighthearted than SN.

I hope this plays at TIFF. It is one of my most anticipated movies of the year even though it didn't collect a lot of passion at the test screening.

[antovolk]

Boyle told this guy that the ’84 scene is shot on 16mm (really looks like the mid ’80s), the NeXT scene on 35mm, the iMac scene on digital.

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by antovolk