MovieChat Forums > Steve Jobs (2015) Discussion > Overly dramatic Oscar bait movie

Overly dramatic Oscar bait movie


As said before on this board, this film is literally 2 hours of Steve Jobs having loooooong twisted conversations with people in almost the same environment (until Joanna or someone else interrupts). Scenes are repetitive, dialogues contain repetitions, the flashbacks are kinda forced and are displayed before the watchers realize that the present conversation even hints at past events, and the score music is clicheic 80% of the film. Having seen the other Steve Jobs biopic focusing on Job's early life starring Ashton Kutcher years ago, I'd say both films are almost equally unjust, but this one is of higher caliber because of Kate Winslet and Jeff Daniels's performances (Fassbender wasn't bad, but he wasn't great as Steve). Apart from these, this film kinda reminded me of Birdman in terms of photography and plot development and the way the director chases the actors walking up and down the stairs with the camera while they're still engaged in active conversations. Did anyone feel that as well?


Anyways, why is it that most Oscar-nominated films are mostly based on endless, pseudo-intelligent conversations between characters and little action, or, on the contrary, on such little dialogue that they have to make it up for with extreme action (e.g. The Revenant) Why has this become a trend in recent years? Why can't there be great films that have both good dialogue AND good action?

reply

I found your critique a bit weird after I saw that you have Woody Allen listed as one of your favourite directors but anyway maybe I'll come back to that later but I think I can probably address the other questions.

The Oscars are voted upon by filmmakers mostly I think and people who are enthusiasts of movies and story telling tend to like films like Steve Jobs because they are all about character study and condensed drama and all that sort of stuff. The reason you don't really see both is probably because studios I think want to dumb down their action blockbusters so that they don't confused people. There are no hard and fast rules here but generally speaking. The Revenant for example isn't an action movie it's an extremely pretentious artsy character film it just happens to have some intense violence for the normals to go "Oh dude that bear *beep* him up dude" and it's got Leo.

reply

I think this is the opposite of an Oscar bait movie. And it could have so easily been an Oscar bait movie. That's why it was pulled from theatres early for poor box office performance, and why it was only nominated for acting. I think that's why I liked it so much, because it was different and not your typical bio-pic Oscar bait movie. It was a ballsy film, and done with the upmost integrity, rather than a watered down crappy movie.

reply

[deleted]

I think this is the opposite of an Oscar bait movie


this was 100%, complete Oscar bait movie from start to finish. It was written over the entire thing.

reply

I thought it was an interesting choice for Steve Jobs being set up as three acts rather than a standard, chronological biography. It emphasised the narrative's thematic qualities and in particular, Job's complex characterisation.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

reply

Why did you come into this movie expecting "action"? As far as I know Steve and Woz didn't settle their disagreements with martial arts fights, and a climactic gun battle in the third act would have been a touch out of place.

reply

Good post, very tedious pretentious movie with no originality

reply

AS all of Sorkin's films are.........and pointless as well

everyone deserves the chance to fly!



reply

I feel the Birdman analogy is applicable especially since this film had the feel of a play (complete with 3 acts) more than your typical movie. I suppose they wanted to try a fresh approach to Jobs given how many films already have been made about his life story. I did appreciate they actually touched on his daughter and somewhat on why he was the way he was, which other films largely ignored. They also made the CEO less of a pantomime villain.

I just didn't really like it as a film overall and it felt pretentious to me. Some people I know just could not get into it and abandoned it midway through. I finished it, but it is not a film I would go out of my way to watch again. Like I said... I appreciate what they were going for, but it was not my cup of tea.

reply

Well, just to comment on your comparison to Birdman; I'll just say that I really enjoyed watching this movie but I couldn't stand Birdman - I found that almost unbearable.

I don't think this movie was overly accurate or anything - but it was definitely well-made and very entertaining.

reply