This weekend you'll have the chance to see not just one but two films based on the lives of real people. The first, "Lee Daniels' The Butler", takes the life of White House butler Eugene Allen and liberally fictionalizes his story to craft a compelling film (read our review here). The other, "Jobs", takes the life of Apple guru Steve Jobs and tells it factually, beat-by-beat. Neither are perfect films, but the dramatized approach to Allen's life undoubtedly makes for a far more interesting experience than the dry, paint-by-numbers template that "Jobs" offers.
I'm not sure who thought Ashton Kutcher would be the right man to fill the shoes of the beloved and celebrated genius -- perhaps because the first half of the film takes place in the hippy-dippy 70s, they instinctually latched onto the former star of "That 70's Show." Whatever the reason, Kutcher is terribly miscast, which means the film is doomed from the start. It is apparent that he spent extensive time studying Jobs' shuffling gait and theatrical gestures, which can occasionally fool you into thinking he's giving a good performance. But Kutcher is so bland that he makes Jobs the least interesting part of the film -- which is problematic when it's a Jobs biopic. The only time he's convincing is in the film's opening sequence where he struts barefooted through the campus of Portland's Reed College and drops acid with his equally long-haired friends. These are clearly familiar motions for Kutcher. But when the script calls for him to show emotion, whether yelling at coworkers or crying in his father's arms, he just looks uncomfortable.
To be fair to Kutcher, he's far from the only problem the film has. For a movie that's named after a man and claims to tell the story of his life, it offers so little insight into his character that it's laughable. 99% of the film takes place in Apple offices and deals with Jobs creating Apple products. The only time the script even attempts to explain Jobs' frequently abrasive behavior is one throwaway line about him being adopted. We learn far more about the history of the Macintosh computer than we do about the life of Steve Jobs. Perhaps a more accurate title for the film would have been "Apple".
The movie follows a screenwriting 101 rise-fall-rise structure that is snooze-worthy in its predictability. The score is overwhelmingly saccharine, trying its best to evoke tears that the script hasn't earned. I hesitate to say I wanted more of an already uninteresting movie, but the film ended so abruptly it was almost offensive. I sat through two hours of Ashton Kutcher shuffling barefoot down hallways to receive no resolution?
The only good thing I can say about the film is that there were some mildly entertaining performances by supporting players, including J.K. Simmons as a bloviating board member and Dermot Mulroney as Apple's primary investor. By far, the best performance in the film goes to Josh Gad as the geeky, bumbling Steve Wozniak. He excels as both the lovable, wisecracking sidekick and as the sad, brokenhearted friend he becomes.
It's ironic that a film about a man who was so dedicated to perfection can be so flawed. It was clearly aiming for the same critically-acclaimed levels as "The Social Network", with its story of an acerbic genius developing a groundbreaking technology while alienating those closest to him. But without Aaron Sorkin's whip-smart dialogue, David Fincher's innovative direction or Jesse Eisenberg's superior performance, "Jobs" falls spectacularly flat. The genius who revolutionized not only an industry, but an entire culture, deserves better than this.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrvkCS0ZGPU[/youtube]
