Metascore
44

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 35
  2. Negative: 6 out of 35
  1. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Aug 21, 2013
    40
    It fails to rise above the inherent limitations of the traditional Hollywood biopic and it's about as insanely great as a Mac "low cost" LC model – which was, to be fair, pretty cool.
  2. Reviewed by: Stephanie Zacharek
    Aug 20, 2013
    60
    Kutcher finds compassion without going for anything so cheap as an explanation for Jobs's bad behavior; it's a wily, understated performance.
  3. Reviewed by: Bilge Ebiri
    Aug 19, 2013
    60
    The problem is that the film gets too wrapped up in the myth to tell an effective behind-the-scenes tale.
  4. Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    Aug 16, 2013
    50
    "Compelling" is a word one could apply to Jobs - he was a magnetic figure - but it doesn't describe this movie. "Average" might even be a stretch, and that's something of an insult to the man whose story it tells.
  5. Reviewed by: Susan Wloszczyna
    Aug 16, 2013
    50
    Save for a few references of being abandoned by his birth parents and adopted later, the source of Jobs's jerky behavior never is revealed.
  6. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Aug 16, 2013
    60
    He was a charismatic leader and the greatest salesman the industry ever saw. He also was a very vocal spokesman for the graying counterculture -- crediting his high-tech success to Zen Buddhism, Dylan songs and acid trips.
  7. Reviewed by: Mark Jenkins
    Aug 16, 2013
    55
    So the principal point of controversy involved here is not Jobs himself, but Ashton Kutcher, who plays him. The actor's approach is to ape Jobs' speech and movements, which he does quite well. Whether mimicry qualifies as characterization is a question for Jobs' viewers to answer for themselves.
  8. Reviewed by: Richard Roeper
    Aug 15, 2013
    63
    It’s a competently made, traditional biopic about a man who disdained those terms.
  9. Reviewed by: Liam Lacey
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    If Jobs had been a producer on Jobs, he would have sent it back to the lab for a redesign.
  10. Reviewed by: Michael O'Sullivan
    Aug 15, 2013
    37
    The film is so thick with Jobs’s career highlights and lowlights that there’s little room for insights.
  11. Reviewed by: Peter Keough
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    If one were to compare this film to one of Jobs’s own products, it would be more like the Cube than the iPod.
  12. Reviewed by: Joe Neumaier
    Aug 15, 2013
    80
    Entertaining and smart, with a great, career 2.0 performance from Ashton Kutcher.
  13. Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    At its best, it's a good picture, and at its worst, it's almost good.
  14. Reviewed by: Mary Pols
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    Kutcher, whose acting chops haven’t been tested in all those pretty-boy lead roles, was a welcome surprise. His movie-star glow distracts, but there is a strong physical resemblance. Moreover, he’s got many of Jobs’ mannerisms down cold, from that T Rex–like walk to the fingers that fan the air and the yoga-style postures left over from his bohemian youth. It’s a good impression, but Jobs itself is all too impressionistic.
  15. Reviewed by: Manohla Dargis
    Aug 15, 2013
    30
    The Great Man theory of history that’s recycled in this movie is inevitably unsatisfying, but never more so when the figure at the center remains as opaque as Jobs does here.
  16. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    One thing it doesn't do is offer a revealing look at the mercurial entrepreneur. The movie that bears his name settles on a blandly superficial treatment of a deeply complex man.
  17. Reviewed by: Lou Lumenick
    Aug 15, 2013
    38
    Jobs amounts to, at best, a Cliffs Notes version of the man’s early life. If you want the real story, you’ll have to read Walter Isaacson’s fascinating 2011 biography, which would make a much better film than this one.
  18. Reviewed by: Steven Rea
    Aug 15, 2013
    63
    Jobs is a just-the-facts - and fiddling-with-the-facts - dramatization, forgoing any kind of deeper psychological exploration of the man and his motivations, his demons and dreams.
  19. Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    Jobs is a one-man show that needed to go for broke and doesn't. My guess is that Jobs would give it a swat.
  20. Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    Aug 15, 2013
    75
    The ironic thrust of the movie is that Jobs' humanity is there in that perfectionistic insanity. He pushes and pushes to make home computers more and more appealing, accessible, and user-friendly, and that's his great gift to the world.
  21. Reviewed by: David Fear
    Aug 15, 2013
    40
    The film thankfully doesn’t offer some pop-psychology Rosebud to explain Jobs’s drive or near-sociopathic perfectionism, yet we walk away knowing nothing about what made this revolutionary tick.
  22. Reviewed by: Rene Rodriguez
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    Jobs works much better as a history of Apple than it does as a portrait of the genius who dreamed it up.
  23. Reviewed by: Michael Phillips
    Aug 15, 2013
    50
    The dialogue comes straight out of "The Benny Goodman Story." That look, someone says to a staring, pausing Kutcher, "tells me you're on to something big." Nobody talks in this movie; everyone speechifies or take turns sloganing one another to death.
  24. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Aug 15, 2013
    42
    Jobs the movie isn't as fascinating as Jobs the man, much less the myth of entrepreneurial superiority he left behind.
  25. Reviewed by: Nathan Rabin
    Aug 15, 2013
    40
    It’s bloated, overwrought, and nakedly sentimental, a sappy and cliched celebration instead of a searching and incisive exploration.
  26. Reviewed by: Kyle Ryan
    Aug 14, 2013
    50
    For (nearly) every yin of Ashton Kutcher’s Steve Jobs flashing a moment of brilliance, there’s a yang of someone saying he’s changed or is his own worst enemy. The unwritten, but understood, full title of Joshua Michael Stern’s film is "Jobs: Brilliant Asshole."
  27. Reviewed by: Mark Olsen
    Aug 14, 2013
    30
    There was a time when the slack storytelling, stock characterizations and general by-the-numbers feeling of the film could be put into perspective by saying it seemed like a TV biopic. But even TV movies are done with more verve than this these days.
  28. Reviewed by: Kerry Lengel
    Aug 14, 2013
    50
    If it weren’t for his voice, Kutcher would have been the ideal choice to star in Jobs, a well-meant but ultimately unsurprising biopic.
  29. Reviewed by: Roger Moore
    Aug 13, 2013
    63
    It’s superficial, but that plays into the hands of the film’s star, Ashton Kutcher.
  30. Reviewed by: R. Kurt Osenlund
    Aug 12, 2013
    0
    Steered by a lead actor and director, Joshua Michael Stern, who are both way out of their respective leagues, Jobs is excruciating, failing to entertain and all but pissing on its subject's grave.
  31. Reviewed by: Sebastian Doggart
    Aug 3, 2013
    20
    Where the film completely falls down is in director Joshua Michael Stern’s disastrous decision to cast Ashton Kutcher in the central role.
  32. Reviewed by: Eric Kohn
    Mar 18, 2013
    58
    The movie is constantly at war with attempts to provide an honest portrayal, almost as if its subject were reaching beyond the grave to steer any negativity back in the direction of a hagiography.
  33. Reviewed by: Justin Lowe
    Mar 18, 2013
    60
    The filmmakers do fall into the trap of overly sentimentalizing a widely beloved public figure who represents an enormous cultural significance. At the same time, however, they keep the movie frequently engaging.
  34. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    Mar 18, 2013
    50
    Ultimately, Jobs is a prosaic but not unaffecting tribute to the virtues of defiance, nonconformity, artistry, beauty, craftsmanship, imagination and innovation, qualities it only intermittently reflects as a piece of filmmaking.
  35. Reviewed by: Ed Gibbs
    Mar 18, 2013
    40
    This is far from the bomb some would have envisaged, but neither is it the character illumination one would wish for. Jobs appears so consumed by his work here that little else mattered in his life. That may be true, but we're left none the wiser as to what made the man tick, beyond what we already know.
User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 141 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 38
  2. Negative: 9 out of 38
  1. Aug 30, 2013
    10
    Ashton kutcher did an amazing performance. The movie itself could be better directed. Yet it is still inspiring and amazing. Kutcher by far did the best performance of his career and showed that he has a great potential. Full Review »
  2. Aug 17, 2013
    3
    Jobs is a boring movie. It feels like the low budget, made-for-tv version of The Social Network. I'm angry that I wasted money on it, and I'm upset at how bad it turned out to be considering how good the trailer looked. Full Review »
  3. Aug 16, 2013
    5
    The decade the film skips when an ousted Jobs created his software company NeXT, which he eventually sold to Apple seems like a lost chapter that could have illuminated it subject. How does such a driven man survive after being driven out? Instead, the film picks up in 1996, when Jobs inexplicably has a new wife and young son; his now college-age daughter snoozing on the living-room couch. He's lured back to Apple and transforms it into the most profitable company in the world. (That's not a spoiler, it's history you can check it on your iPhone.) And that's the problem with "Jobs." While it's interesting to see the history of Apple and how Jobs' singular determination was crucial to its success, the history of a company isn't as compelling as the history of a person, especially one as complex, innovative and influential as Steve Jobs. Full Review »