No internal conflict? I suppose the subplots pertaining to his daughter and Jon Skully were not internal at all.
I'm not sure that you know what "internal" means.
That shows how much insight you lack into this project.
No one told me there'd be homework for this movie. I never got the primer.
And that's fine. Not everyone can break down films and identify aspects of them
And where's your breakdown?
but don't let ignorance be held as a virtue when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.
Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
There are definitely flaws in this script, make no doubt about that, but the strengths far outweigh their counterparts.
And you list NONE. You don't even insinuate one.
The writing in
Steve Jobs was pretty and the actors did a great job with the words they were given. But it was nice wrapping paper on an empty box. The entire movie hammers us over the head with Steve Jobs' relentless pursuit of creating this life-altering technology that will change the future. We don't know why, we just know that he wants that and has sacrificed all of his relationships to achieve this end. Now feel free to enlighten me because I could have completely missed it but, at what point does Steve Jobs have any internal conflict? Even at the end when he had the opportunity to give credit to the Apple II team, he still doesn't and that's after at least the second time he's confronted by Steve Wozniak. The closest thing to a change is when at some point that we don't see, he accepts that Lisa is his daughter but still, where was the conflict? He's the same at the beginning as he is at the end and he vehemently defends and justifies every position he took in 1984 to 1998. (Again, if I missed something then that's something that can be discussed.)
One movie I'll compare this to is last year's Whiplash. The themes were in many regards similar, only Whiplash committed to its theme and Steve Jobs was all over the place. In Whiplash, we see, for example, Andrew attempting to connect as a human being and realizing that there is no room for relationships that don't serve that end. We see those fork-in-the-road decisions he makes when Fletcher presents him with seemingly insurmountable obstacles. We see Andrew choose between taking the path of what he sees as mediocrity versus greatness. And all within the context of a narrative (which Steve Jobs lacks). With Steve Jobs, we only get that his vision for Apple is the only thing that matters with no context. He doesn't strive to be the next great inventor (even his Beatles' "John" comparison is initiated by Wozniak) nor is there some big choice he has to make. Nope. Just some half-assed resolution with his daughter who must be a saint since their relationship is exclusively determined by Steve and not Lisa.
I'm not saying your opinions are wrong or dumb or anything of the sort. I'm saying they're completely unsubstantiated. We can interpret elements of film differently. Fine. But you had the gall to attack someone's ability to critique film without ever providing a critique yourself. Really, it's no different than the original poster's fluffy opinions, "Sorkin did it again. The script was incredible," (how?) and "Danny Boyle? Hit a grand slam. He took a great script and somehow made it even better with an impressive touch," (how so?) or "The interweaving of the three different periods of the movie and how the film was so successful in putting many years of the life of Steve Jobs into three different segments," (what's the significance?) There's nothing to interpret, discuss, or debate; they're just opinions stated as fact. It's "incredible" just because this person says it was incredible.
Please.
reply
share