Steve Jobs

The movie captures the essence of who Jobs was. The movie itself is mostly fictional.

From the amazing director Danny Boyle and writer Aaron Sorkin who wrote 'The Social Network', comes a biopic based on Walter Isaacson's biographical novel of the late founder of Apple, one of the largest running business's in the world. This marks the second attempt to bring the story of the titular character, with the first being the 2013 film 'Jobs' starring Ashton Kutcher.

Steve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution, to a paint of the man at its epicentre. The story unfolds backstage at three iconic product launches, ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac.

This movie has a completely different meaning than what most people are looking for. To understand that, one need not to know who Steve Jobs is, what he has done for the tech revolution or even if there was any real existence of Steve Jobs.

Hoped the movie was about the entire life, ended up "just" seeing 3 moments in his life, before some critical moments none the less. Yet, have the feeling that a good dramatic movie about his entire life has yet to be made (see Jobs (2013) which was OK, but not epic).

Forget about those tech "enthusiastic"s who argue why you pare down this or that fact in Apple's history.Everyone knows more or less what Jobs did.

Michael Fassbender does a wonderful job in portraying the film's protagonist, it is true, but JOBS is not a good movie.To say that Aaron Sorkin's screenplay incorporates clichés is something of an understatement.

Steve Jobs is a character study of the genius man. And like Jobs himself, the movie is a complex yet heartfelt dramatization of three different stages of his life.

I do not see the point of making movies about Steve Jobs at all. Unless someone wants to make money on a very famous name of our era.