jOBS (2013)

jOBS (2013)
  • Time: 122 min
  • Genre: Biography | Drama
  • Director: Joshua Michael Stern
  • Cast: Ashton Kutcher, Dermot Mulroney, Josh Gad


It only takes one person to start a revolution. The extraordinary story of Steve Jobs, the original innovator and ground-breaking entrepreneur who let nothing stand in the way of greatness. The film tells the epic and turbulent story of Jobs as he blazed a trail that changed technology — and the world.


  • 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 Steve Jobs was realistic, so we see both his good and bad sides. Ashton Kutcher was well cast and played the role rather well, I would say, altough in some sequences, you feel it is over-exaggerated by Kutcher’s acting. What could have been done better is the fact they didn’t tell the story of the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod… That should have been in this movie, too! But all in all, I found this a pretty good movie, certainly worth watching.

  • I’m not an Apple fan. It might be because I live in Europe, but even if I did live in the USA I believe I wouldn’t see the point in buying something so expensive, like the iPod, if I could get an almost identical music player for much less money. All this idolizing Apple and their products is extremely irritating, since all their products have is a name and a huge price – there’s nothing else in the Mac, it’s just a computer. So, I really couldn’t care less when they announced jOBS – a biopic about the life of Apple’s founder and marketing genius. But a reviewer’s got to work, so I watched it – and found it to be bad.

    The movie starts in 2001 and it shows us an ageing Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) presenting the iPod to a public so excited, some of the people start to cry. Then, it goes back in time, and we learn that Steve dropped out of college to start Apple computers with his friend, Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), who single-handedly invented the Apple I and Apple II computers. We realise Jobs was not an inventor, he was just good with words and could easily sell anything to anybody, but he was a douche who took advantage of people and treated them badly. For example, he impregnated his girlfriend and then claimed he was sterile so he wouldn’t have to pay alimony.

    First of all, I do like how the movie tries to show Jobs’ bad side. Unfortunately, everything he does is justified, most of the time by demonstrating that he’s just a misunderstood workaholic – just like all the geniuses before him. Therefore, the movie ends up glorifying Jobs, just like many others already did, and that makes it pointless. Moreover, Wozniak himself stated the movie is inaccurate in portraying his, and other people’s relationship with Jobs – which, if you believe Wozniak, makes jOBS a bad movie. In addition, the movie fails generally when trying to insert other people in the story, alongside Kutcher: nobody gets enough screen time, or development time, so we don’t care about anything that’s happening to them. This could have been a great way to develop the main character, too, but it fell flat.

    Ashton Kutcher isn’t a particularly good actor, and in Jobs he showed that, even though he tries to be a method actor, he can’t escape himself. During the whole movie, you never see Steve Jobs – only Ashton Kutcher trying to be Steve Jobs; and to think he was even hospitalised because he followed Jobs’ fruitarian diet to prepare for the role. Furthermore, a lot of interesting aspects of Jobs’ life are just ignored or taken for granted – like his transition from hippie to suit-wearing billionaire, or everything he did when he founded NeXT because he was kicked out of Apple, or why he decided to marry and settle down after his bad experience with his pregnant girlfriend. Because of all these things, I think the movie should have been called Apple, as it focuses mainly on the company and how Jobs managed to make it profitable.

    Rating: 5/10

    Read more reviews at

  • I expected “jOBS” to be a long stretched commercial for Apple, instead of a sketch of the founder of this quirky product. This wasn’t entirely true, but it was close. I wonder how much input Jobs himself had in this film. Or was the script drafted without consultation of himself?

    The disadvantage of a biography is that if the person portrayed is not part of your interest, you’re probably going to find this a bland and boring movie. If I would watch a biographical movie about the driving force behind the Tupperware story, I ‘d probably fall asleep and look at it disinterested. Obviously since I’m working in the IT sector, “Jobs ” kept me in its grip. I saw the rise of the famous PC. I’ve been through it all : programming with a punch card machine, Winchester disks, C64 and C128, using floppy disks with, looking at the current standards, terribly little capacity and only used nowadays as a Frisbee, the Sinclair ZX Spectrum, Tandy TRS-80, the 286/386/486 DOS machines,…. And when I started my career in the world of the IT, the person who was about to offer me a job, asked me if I knew anything about Macintosh. I wholeheartedly said I did and the next day I was attending a course about DBase II and asked if they could tell me what the hell a Macintosh was. I was allowed to have a Mac Plus and for the first time I held a mouse (I thought it was bloody inconvenient) in my hand and I learned about dragging files and throwing it in the garbage bin. Nobody can imagine how groundbreaking and shocking this was for people who were used to work in a DOS environment and struggling with “CD” and “DIR” commands. A whole new world revealed itself thanks to Apple. Deep down, I still adore everything that has to do with Apple.

    What did I miss in this film ? The technical side of the origin of the idea of this thought out product. We see the Apple II passing by. Lisa is mentioned. And then there is the creation of the Macintosh what leads to the separation of Jobs and the Apple company. The Next passes and before you know it we look at the design of the iMac. That’s it. No digression about the creation of the graphical interface. Who the hell got the brilliant idea of that mouse design ? Ultimately, the film is a self-glorification of the individual Jobs. We actually get to see a tyrannical person without any feelings. To be honest I think he was an arrogant bastard with no mercy. The people who started with him were put aside after a while and didn’t share in the profit at the time it became a success. A programmer who showed no enthusiasm is fired on the spot. There’s a child that he completely ignores and doesn’t accept as his child. He sells his shares to destabilize the company. The debacle over alleged copying of Macintosh software by Microsoft (And I’m convinced it was a copy) is just a flash in the whole movie . They could have gone a bit further with this item. But it’s undeniable ! He was a visionary with strong opinions about what the computer would mean in our ordinary life. It’s also obvious that he turned out to be a sociopathic bully.

    Aston Kutcher actually did a very fine job (What a quibble !) in portraying Jobs. The attitude, the wandering gaze and enthusiasm seemed sincere. Likewise, this can be said about the actors who formed the gang of computer nerds that stood at the cradle of Macintosh. A movie that won’t make a deep impression on most people. I found it an enjoyable film that briefly allowed us to look at a product that is central in our lives, but in a different way.

  • 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”.

Leave a Reply to Movie Fan Community Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *