Best movie of this year hands down!

One of my all time favorites.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

The film attempts to cram 40 years of history into 2 hours. It starts with Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) dropping acid and hanging out with the counter culture group. It shows us that he was a very flawed man and early on is called an a-hole. In addition to glimpses of Steve's personal life, we see his difficulty in dealing with the various suits who want to make dollars and sense of the company.The main problem with the film is that Jobs is the only character that is developed and he is unlikeable. There is very little connection to the viewer. While I love a 60's music soundtrack, the songs they selected were hit and miss with clearly better selections available. The credits show us a picture of the real life individual next to the actor that played them as a way to say, "Aren't we clever?" The secondary actors were cardboard cutouts.The film sends a message of innovation and thinking outside of the box, which is weakened by the personality portrayed of Jobs. Worth a view as a rental.Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.

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.

Jobs(2013) StarringAshton Kutcher,Dermot Mulroney,Josh Gad,Lukas Haas,Matthew Modine,J.K Simmions,Lesely Ann WarrenDirected By:Joshua Michael Stern Review This movie is a love hate debate for any apple/Steve Jobs enthuses. This movie is a mess, it's terribly structured, hardly ever focused and the screenplay is just all over the place. There's not much of a cohesive narrative but that being said the acting in this movie is just so good. Every actor in this movie is just too good to be stranded in a mess of a film. It's borderline insulting, AShton Kutcher doesn't just give his performance to date, he gave one of the best performances of 2013, and guys I hate Ashton Kutcher. I personally never gave a hoot for his acting until I saw this film. He looks and acts so much like Steve Jobs it just blew my mind. Josh Gad also gives a great performance as Steve warsniak despite that the things that happened between him and Jobs are made up. So if I love the performances why do I think it's terrible because Jobs could have been and should have been something great. And instead strands great performances in a mess of a movie. Given the talent in this movie there is no excuse for this film to be structured so poorly. Every time the movie would start to focus on something important in Jobs's career it would abandoned talking about that and movie on to the next thing. The movie is two hours yet it feels the need to rush through jobs's career rather then focusing on the major parts of it. The rivalry between Jobs and Bill gates was a huge part of his career and yet that's just passed on like a cliff note. We get Jobs making one angry phone call to gates and that's it. Gates doesn't even make an appearance in this film that's just weak. Jobs had the potential to be if not good but great which is why I give this disappointment a two out of five.

There is no much to say about this. After only 3 minutes in you realize this is going to suck! the first couple of minutes should set the tone for the movie. should tell you what to expect from the rest. Good examples for this are "Scream". The Intro with Drew Barrymore totally gets you in the mood and tells you what to except the remaining 90 minutes or so. Here the first couple ob Minutes are boring as hell. Bad Camera. Mediocre Acting and it already feels totally boring. thats exactly how the movie continues... Your best bet would be to ignore this movie and go straight to watching the 2015 Steve Jobs Movie instead