User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 161 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 53 out of 161
  2. Negative: 50 out of 161
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 23, 2013
    4
    Joshua Michael Stern's "Jobs" is like an assembly line for the best moments in the career of Steve Jobs, but seriously lacking in depth, and without much significance. It is a truly unremarkable biopic of the "master of innovation" as you could possibly imagine. "Jobs" follows an overly safe, unimaginative course that clocks in at a tiresome 122 minutes. The storytelling is painfullyJoshua Michael Stern's "Jobs" is like an assembly line for the best moments in the career of Steve Jobs, but seriously lacking in depth, and without much significance. It is a truly unremarkable biopic of the "master of innovation" as you could possibly imagine. "Jobs" follows an overly safe, unimaginative course that clocks in at a tiresome 122 minutes. The storytelling is painfully straightforward, covering only the principal events of his professional trials and tribulations, and providing little else beyond what is already public knowledge.

    Developing his imagination for computer programming at Atari, Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) brings in his friend Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to help with the hardware aspect, forming a partnership that would soon lead to the founding and development of Apple Computers, a force within the industry throughout the 1980s. Steve is not prepared for the financial demands and the ruthless business mentality, and is eventually forced out of the company he began, only to return in the 1990s with a fresh game plan on how to bring Apple back into the public consciousness, and to dominate the industry once again.

    "Jobs" is a biopic with a very narrow focus, and without any sense of risk or adventure. It is so intent on covering Jobs' entire corporate career, that it simply reduces his personal life to a footnote. Stern completely glosses over Jobs' personal life, which is essential to any self-respecting biopic. The entire production feels rushed and slapped together simply to benefit from being the first one out of the gate.

    To his credit, Kutcher puts forth a good effort, and he undeniably looks the part of Steve Jobs. Unfortunately, Ashton always looks like he is trying too hard to play the part, and never fully becomes the character he's portraying. His limitations on the big screen prove to be a major liability. He has developed a screen persona as likeable character, which has served him well with numerous TV sitcoms. Not so much with movies.

    What emerges is a movie that has "a made for TV" feel, which depicts a self-absorbed creep who stabs everyone in the back to simply to get his way that goes on for two plus hours. A thoroughly unsatisfying tribute, and we are still left none the wiser as to what made "The Father of the Digital Revolution" beyond what we already know.
    Expand
  2. 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-roomThe 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. Expand
  3. Aug 22, 2013
    5
    From all accounts, Steve Jobs was a brilliant innovator, but also a demanding, inconsiderate This biopic starts with his free-spirit college days, spends lots of time creating the first computer in his parents' garage, then traces his rise and fall and rise at Apple. Ashton Kutcher, who is an on-screen charmer, is out of his league in this role, unable to plumb the characters'From all accounts, Steve Jobs was a brilliant innovator, but also a demanding, inconsiderate This biopic starts with his free-spirit college days, spends lots of time creating the first computer in his parents' garage, then traces his rise and fall and rise at Apple. Ashton Kutcher, who is an on-screen charmer, is out of his league in this role, unable to plumb the characters' complexities. Even though the screenplay tries to show Jobs' good and bad sides, it's just a flat, yet absorbing history lacking in emotion, drama or excitement. Expand
  4. Sep 22, 2013
    5
    The movie is quite entertaining and not bad overall but where it fails miserably is the decision to cast Aston Kutcher. Every moment that is suppose to be taken seriously, having feeling, or make a point comes across as cheesy. "Jobs" is certainly no "Social Network".
  5. Aug 17, 2013
    5
    It ain't no "Social Network", it's a movie that lingers in some aspects. For starters I'll say that the acting is pretty good, especially Ashton Kutcher. I don't know how he did it, but he off Steve Jobs pretty good. But the big problem with this movie is that source material used is a bit of a mess. They exaggerate some factual source material, yet at the same time they don't show enoughIt ain't no "Social Network", it's a movie that lingers in some aspects. For starters I'll say that the acting is pretty good, especially Ashton Kutcher. I don't know how he did it, but he off Steve Jobs pretty good. But the big problem with this movie is that source material used is a bit of a mess. They exaggerate some factual source material, yet at the same time they don't show enough of other source material. Overall, it's a heart-less version of "The Social Network". Be sure to check out my YouTube channel "TheMovieManLife" for all things movies. Expand
  6. Sep 7, 2013
    6
    "How does somebody know what they want if they haven't even seen it." This one sentence really explained to me why Apple was created. JOBS, is the biography/film recreation of Steve Jobs' (Ashton Kutcher) life. Being founder of Apple, we follow him and Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), as they create the company and watch it flourish. The film starts in 2001 (picture two) as Steve introduces the"How does somebody know what they want if they haven't even seen it." This one sentence really explained to me why Apple was created. JOBS, is the biography/film recreation of Steve Jobs' (Ashton Kutcher) life. Being founder of Apple, we follow him and Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad), as they create the company and watch it flourish. The film starts in 2001 (picture two) as Steve introduces the first iPod, and then it jumps back to mid 70's when the company first started. Starting the company in his parent’s garage with the other Steve, we follow him through his hard work in Apple. We could tell that Steve really was a jerk after starting his company, but we also saw how he cared about his good friends and about the association.

    The movie really gave me an understanding on how his life changed the world. I learned that words did not affect Steve; he never gave up with hundreds of people hanging up on his phone pitches, and in live demos. The film JOBS really showed how great of an actor Kutcher is. Throughout the film, I was convinced that he was Steve Jobs. He had got everything right even down to the walk Steve actually carried.

    Being an Apple fan, I really enjoyed JOBS. I think that any viewer would enjoy the film, but I feel like the movie will only attract people who care about the history of Apple. It's more of a selective audience for this film, because there is no point in seeing it if you are not an Apple fanatic. I think Josh Gad also did a great job as Wozniak, and I still think he and Jonah Hill have the same voice.

    Even in the 130 minutes the film ran, JOBS did not cover the last decade of his life when Apple really took off. Sequel, maybe? I wasn't sure if Open Road Films (which I've never heard of) had to pull the plug on the ending. After thinking about the film, my only idea is that they did not need to continue the film because we can just pull out the device in our pockets. They did not need to cover the next decade, because we already know what happens. The company expands so greatly that Steve gets his wish of changing the world with over 25% of American adults, owning iPhones.

    I felt the film started to drag on, even though some scenes were rushed. For example, Steve's wife and children came into the picture at a time that didn't seem appropriate. Overall, I think Jobs really defines Steve’s life, and the start, and growth of the company everyone knows about. If you own an iDevice, or want to learn more about Steve; JOBS is the movie for you.
    Expand
  7. Aug 18, 2013
    6
    jOBS Review

    Originally posted at: http://www.yeahyeahcool.com/2013/08/18/jobs-review/ by Carla Valdes @karluccia In 2011 the world lost one of the most important visionaries of our era. Two years later, from director Joshua Michael Stern, we have Jobs; a bio-pic that should have looked back on the extraordinary life and career of Steve Jobs, but rather focuses more on the
    jOBS Review

    Originally posted at: http://www.yeahyeahcool.com/2013/08/18/jobs-review/

    by Carla Valdes @karluccia

    In 2011 the world lost one of the most important visionaries of our era. Two years later, from director Joshua Michael Stern, we have Jobs; a bio-pic that should have looked back on the extraordinary life and career of Steve Jobs, but rather focuses more on the boardroom drama of Apple Computers.

    Ashton Kutcher does a fair acting attempt with a respectful performance, even taking on Jobs’ distinctive mannerisms and walking stride. Comic relief is provided in the way of Josh Gad, who portrays Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. The rest of the cast does its fair share at responding to Kutcher’s rants, looking wide eyed and fearful when needed.

    I feel the problem with Jobs comes from the script, which focuses on Jobs being a neurotic, unlikeable, vindictive, angry genius and bad father, who suffers from occasional screaming fits, usually done while speeding his sports car through the rain.

    Much of Steve Jobs’ personal life is randomly mentioned in the film, one moment being the emotional impact his adoption had on him which is touched upon during an LSD trip. Omitted completely is the important work Jobs held with Pixar, his development of the iPhone, his emotional search of his biological parents, how he met and married his wife, and most important his history with Bill Gates, the latter being reduced to a heated one sided phone call with Jobs screaming at the top of his lungs.

    Maybe Steve Jobs wasn’t the nicest person when he was alive, but surely he deserved more than this depressing, uninspired and disappointing film.

    D+
    Expand
  8. Aug 22, 2013
    5
    Ashton Kutcher may have the talent to play Steve Jobs, but the rest of the movie cuts out a few very important details of his life, while being monotonous in the process. But it is worth watching.
  9. Oct 28, 2013
    6
    i expected more from this film, specially since it runs over 2 hours..
    i expected to see more about the product creation, i expected at least a mention of pixar and for last i expected the timeline to reach at least the first iphone..
    I however did like that they didnt try to pass steve as a good doo'er and got to show hes side. That being sad, i did not disliked the movie, liked it
    i expected more from this film, specially since it runs over 2 hours..
    i expected to see more about the product creation, i expected at least a mention of pixar and for last i expected the timeline to reach at least the first iphone..
    I however did like that they didnt try to pass steve as a good doo'er and got to show hes side.
    That being sad, i did not disliked the movie, liked it about as much as one could like a movie about a genius if i would have to choose between this and the social network, i'ld go with facebook thos, just a better script and better acting.
    Expand
  10. Jan 9, 2014
    5
    Jobs is a monotonous and very biographic film. During two hours all what we see is the life of Steve Jobs, just as it was. He started working in the garage of his house with some friends fixing computers and ended founding his own company, from which he was fired and the rehired; to finally become a living celebrity. The problem of the movie is that it waste a story with so greatJobs is a monotonous and very biographic film. During two hours all what we see is the life of Steve Jobs, just as it was. He started working in the garage of his house with some friends fixing computers and ended founding his own company, from which he was fired and the rehired; to finally become a living celebrity. The problem of the movie is that it waste a story with so great potential, I mean the director could evaluate the reaction of the protagonist during the time without job, or when he lose all his friends, and even when he was successful. Although there are some things that are really good, for example how it manage to capture the legend that Jobs represent, also is the unbelievable acting of Ashton Kutcher, and the way it is use the camera; because at the beginning of the film we see the moment when the IPod was presented and Steve was at the summit of his career, the camera record from below, giving the character an unreachable figure. Just after that its shown when he was stuck starting the university, the camera is placed above, meaning that he is a person of no importance. The problem is that the movie is nothing more than a history class. Expand
  11. Jan 11, 2014
    4
    Jobs is a boring straightforward biopic that shows Steve Jobs at his highs and lows without any insight into anything. While these are real people, the characters themselves are underdeveloped. The script is lousy and cliché, and the director seemed to be making a TV movie at best.
  12. Oct 11, 2013
    5
    Jobs is an inspiring movie about working hard and dedication. Jobs accurately represents Steve Jobs as he was. This movie is slow at first but once it picks up, it never falls. It's so interesting to see how Steve Jobs and the rest of Apple can go from working in a garage, to becoming the worlds most valuable company.
    Ashton Kutcher shows a different side of his acting talents, Kutcher
    Jobs is an inspiring movie about working hard and dedication. Jobs accurately represents Steve Jobs as he was. This movie is slow at first but once it picks up, it never falls. It's so interesting to see how Steve Jobs and the rest of Apple can go from working in a garage, to becoming the worlds most valuable company.
    Ashton Kutcher shows a different side of his acting talents, Kutcher plays Jobs so well, while looking much like him. Althoguht the movie leaves out some really interesting patches of Steve Jobs' life. Like his work with Disney, and Pixar. But bottom line, regardless of all of that other stuff. There was a lot and i mean a lot, of things wrong, false, and incorrect about the movie. I think this film was too rushed and could have been dont a lot better. If the film wasn't so rushed Steve Wozniak could have maybe been on set to help out.
    Expand
  13. Jan 27, 2014
    6
    La historia esta bien relatada JObs es una pelicula de esas que,son difíciles de calificar gracias a que tienes sus bajas y sus altas además de ser una películas que trae varia polémica en la critica
  14. Nov 25, 2013
    5
    "Jobs" was ambitious but it never really felt like a big budget biopic about Steve Jobs and, ultimately, felt like a made-for-TV story about the Apple guru. I wasn't sold on Kutcher's performance and only saw him as Ashton the entire movie and not Steve. Additionally, I felt they handled Jobs' growth as a person poorly as the movie jumped from point to point and any character development"Jobs" was ambitious but it never really felt like a big budget biopic about Steve Jobs and, ultimately, felt like a made-for-TV story about the Apple guru. I wasn't sold on Kutcher's performance and only saw him as Ashton the entire movie and not Steve. Additionally, I felt they handled Jobs' growth as a person poorly as the movie jumped from point to point and any character development needed for the next scene was just conveniently there when the story arrived. However, I really enjoyed Josh Gad as Wozniak, the soundtrack was great and I admire that they didn't sugarcoat the reality that Jobs had a reputation of being kind of a big meanie-head. In the end, "Jobs" was a passable biopic about the man who created a company where people will wait in line for days to get a phone that is really no different from the previous one they waited in line for. Expand
  15. Apr 19, 2014
    6
    Jobs isn't the best biopic on Steve Job's life, but it isn't a dismal attempt. It lacks good narrative in the beginning, but by the middle parts you might even start to like it a little. Ashton Kutcher has his moments of great acting, but they are mostly overshadowed by his lack of emotional depth in the character.
  16. Feb 15, 2014
    4
    The film does tackle very important points about Steve Jobs and his life, but in the end it really all comes down to the casting, particularly Ashton Kutcher's role as Steve. Which was the big mistake of the film.
  17. Mar 10, 2014
    5
    An okay film but not what I wanted to see, in any simple way of putting it's disappointing, only hope Steve Jobs gets a better quality film about him and not just the products he made.
  18. chw
    Jul 17, 2014
    4
    Jobs was SO VERY INCREDIBLY boring. It was interesting, but that's not close to recommending the movie. Because this was a failure, Danny Boyle wants to make his own Steve Jobs biopic starring Leonardo DiCaprio.
  19. Nov 13, 2014
    5
    "Jobs" 10 Scale Rating: 5.5 (Decent) ...

    The Good: Kutcher is one of the few actors whose mere appearance in a film will cause it to lose points for me, but he was actually pretty good in this. In fact, the entire cast did a good job. Jobs is a fascinating person, so it wasn't hard to keep my interest. The Bad: Jobs has been described as difficult and downright anti-social at times,
    "Jobs" 10 Scale Rating: 5.5 (Decent) ...

    The Good: Kutcher is one of the few actors whose mere appearance in a film will cause it to lose points for me, but he was actually pretty good in this. In fact, the entire cast did a good job. Jobs is a fascinating person, so it wasn't hard to keep my interest.

    The Bad: Jobs has been described as difficult and downright anti-social at times, but "Jobs" makes him out to be a Grade A jackass. I don't think that was their intent, but when the lead is this unlikeable, it really takes away from a film. Other critics have already pointed this out, but the film also feels like a made-for-television movie.
    Expand
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.