Jobs vs. Steve Jobs

With the recent DVD/Blu-Ray release of Danny Boyle’s oscar-nominated “Steve Jobs”, it’s worth mentioning that other Steve Jobs movie from a few years ago. You know the one. The Ashton Kutcher-starring “Jobs” directed by Joshua Michael Stern. One actor was rewarded with an Oscar nomination for portraying him, and the other was rewarded with never leading a movie since! There’s a fair share of praises and criticisms on both ends, particularly the brunt of it going to Kutcher’s version – getting panned by critics almost across the board. Yet it’s worth noting that both films disappointed at the box office. So, is one really better than the other? Did another Steve Jobs movie feel superfluous? Without any preconceived bias, here’s what I thought about both films:

Lead Performance:

One thing that 2013’s “Jobs” got right was the casting, it’s pitch-perfect; and to act as the foundation to that claim is Ashton Kutcher’s (No Strings Attached, The Butterfly Effect) career-best performance as the man himself. Even the film’s most ardent detractors can agree that Ashton has the look down. But looks aren’t everything; Kutcher’s turn as the Apple co-founder is stupendous, unlike anything we’ve seen him in before. The way he transitions from quiet subtlety to seething rage is remarkable – and he can deliver boatloads of emotion without uttering a single line, just by the fire in his expressions. It’s a tour de force performance and he remains a live wire throughout the film’s 2h 7m runtime. It’s also worth noting that during the public speaking segments, he nails Steve’s mannerisms and speech pattern with gravitas. One gripe however is how little these two sound alike: at times it seems like Ashton is really trying to emulate Steve’s voice, while other times it just sounds like Ashton Kutcher. It’s pretty scattershot and can sometimes even be distracting. I feel that a bit of vocal work could have cleaned it up a bit, but it’s certainly not that big of an issue considering his other accomplishments in the role. Truly an (extremely, extremely) underrated performance, through and through.

2015’s “Steve Jobs” chose Michael Fassbender (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Shame) to play the role of the titular character. While he comes nowhere close to resembling the real Steve Jobs, it isn’t – say – Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover miscasting. But make no mistake, he does more than just get the job done – he’s outstanding as always. This version of Jobs is much more sinister, skeevy, and cerebral – and Fassbender is up to the challenge, forming a reprehensible yet not wholly unlikeable portrayal. In short, he’s incredible. Though, in a major detour from what literally almost everybody else has said about these films, Kutcher is a smidge better.

I suppose this is where my thoughts get controversial but no matter the flak they’ve gotten – Kutcher was the better performance. Michael Fassbender was great, but his performance only seemed to call for two notes: arrogance and instant regret. Ashton’s portrayal was much more layered. From contemplating why his (or anyone’s) parents would abandon a newborn; to breaking down over the psychological crumbling of his person; to pushing away his closest friends for a corporate push; to calmly addressing an audience about one of the biggest technology diversions of our time.. we go on more of a ride with him and Kutcher simply nails it. Again, that’s not to say Fassbender wasn’t also award-calibur, but Ashton takes the cake here. I feel like so many people are chastising his performance due to an actor bias (even though Fassbender claimed he studied Kutcher to prepare his own performance), but whatever the case may be, his work in “Jobs” was certainly the highlight of the film. Masterful work and a truly unforgettable performance.

Winner: “Jobs”

Supporting Cast:

The supporting cast for both films are also exceptional. Starting off with Steve’s second-in-command (or arguably the other way around) Steve Wozniak, played respectively by Josh Gad and Seth Rogen – both known mostly for comedy. This is flat out Josh Gad’s (Frozen, Pixels) best performance. It’s so sad to see him pander in such atrocious comedies as “Pixels” and “The Wedding Ringer” nowadays because he is genuinely touching in this role, I mean really show-stopping. But due to a confusing lack of screen time, Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, Neighbors) is his better and has way more time to shine. This casting choice surprised me and I wasn’t sure if Seth could quite pull it off, and I was proven wrong. Seth is a million kinds of intricate in the role, with subtle mannerisms that quickly turn into blistering rage – he’s mesmerizing to say the absolute least. There’s something not quite all there in Steve Wozniak, and while both Josh and Seth do a top-notch job, Seth is simply on screen more (rightly so) and captures the inner conflicts of him best.

John Scully (played respectively by Matthew Modine and Jeff Daniels) was the marketing head responsible for the firing of Steve Jobs – so needless to say he’s an important role in the life of the Apple CEO. After a string of bombs and stinkers, Matthew Modine (The Dark Knight Trilogy, Full Metal Jacket) portrayed John Scully in “Jobs”; and yeah, he was good. Not outstanding, but rather, surprising – he played the torn demeanor like a natural. But, again, he isn’t given quite as much screen time as he should have (though he’s way less underwrtten than Woz). Though in this case, Jeff Daniels (The Martian, Dumb and Dumber) absolutely crushes this performance. He’s faultless, as per usual from Jeff Daniels. Daniels is so committed to this role that, in his long and seasoned career, this is one of his greatest feats as an actor. He’s totally immersive whenever he’s on screen and plays so many different kinds of emotion that it’s heart-racing. Jeff bar-none takes the cake here, another win for “Steve Jobs” casting.

In terms of truly outstanding performances in “Jobs”, that’s about it. For “Steve Jobs” however, there’s still Kate Winslet who completely disappears in the role of Joanna Hoffman; Michael Stuhlbarg as Andy Hertzfeld who deserved some kind of an award nomination for his scope; Katherine Waterson as Steve’s tortured wife; newcomer Perla Haney-Jardine as Steve’s neglected daughter, etc. In short, the acting in “Steve Jobs” is more than top shelf. It’s one of the most surprisingly well-acted movies I’ve ever seen. The cast of “Jobs” certainly has the looks down, but that will have to suffice. Besides the title role, “Steve Jobs” has the best acting of the two in every other field.

Winner: “Steve Jobs”

Direction:

Both of these movies are beautifully, masterfully shot. Joshua Michael Stern (Swing Vote, Neverwas) surprisingly directs “Jobs” with grace – given how boring his only other two movies are, that’s surprising. Expertly filmed with some truly exceptional shots that we see too little of these days, it surprised me with its intricate direction. But when it comes to direction, few come close to the expertise of Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours). “Steve Jobs” showcases some of the best direction of 2015 and unjustly got snubbed for that category at the Oscars. Just as with his other films, Boyle elicits bravura performances from his cast and places them over great shots and backdrops. Flawless camerawork that perfectly the revelatory narrative, this one’s a no-brainer: “Steve Jobs”.

Winner: “Steve Jobs”

Production:

While the direction in “Steve Jobs” is clearly superior to the also fine directing of “Jobs”, the same cannot be said for the production. This isn’t the studio’s fault, however, as the story for “Steve Jobs” calls for use of dark back-building areas and a few stages. Make no mistake, the set design in “Steve Jobs” is still great, but nowhere near as brilliant as it is utilized in “Jobs”. They even filmed some scenes in the Jobs’ family home! In short, these locations look fantastic and fit the film nicely. Not only do the sets feel like the given time periods in “Jobs”, but the different time periods have a certain color scheme that matches the Apple products made in said period. It’s actually very brilliant and makes the film as a whole resonate that much more given its subject matter. The 70s aesthetically allude to the Apple II, the 80s allude to the Macintosh, the early 2000s allude to the iPod, and so forth. These sets resound much much more than those of “Steve Jobs” because they subtly catch the eye and draw you into the story of whichever time period it takes place in. And, being a biopic, that shows a knack for the craft as well as makes up for some of its other flaws (which, trust me, it has a lot of). The production here you won’t forget, the clear winner is “Jobs”.

Winner: “Jobs”

Writing:

The final and above all most important category – writing. Unfortunately, this is where one of the films suffers the most – keeping it from being a great film like the other and the one it should have been in the first place. “Jobs” doesn’t just take the loss here – it takes a hard, deafening loss. Not only is the writing in general vastly inferior to that of “Steve Jobs”; but the writing in “Steve Jobs” is so amazing that it’d be hard to match even if it had an actual finished script. The writing in “Jobs”, to put it bluntly, is detestably unfinished. It confusingly leaves large chunks of Steve’s life left out – which can be understandable in a biopic – but it leaves out some of the most important events and ends on a dime in a seemingly arbitrary section of his life. It bounces from 2001 to the 70s without much reasoning and refusing to revisit the 2000s – like, at all. All we see is a minute-and-a-half long clip of Steve introducing the iPod, and that’s it. No iPad, no iPhone, no iMac, no Macbook, no more iPod, nothing from the 2000s on. Even his death and cancer diagnosis is left out! This film was clearly written after Steve’s passing quick to be the first Jobs biopic because the pacing is so jumpy and asinine that, when it has you tricked into a nice story flow, it goes into full turbulence. Key events and characters are introduced out of nowhere and are often forgotten as well. For instance, his entire career with Next? Gone. Anything involving his feud with Bill Gates outside a 10-second phone call? Gone. What this movie could have benefited from is an extra half hour/forty minutes. Maybe then it could come somewhat close to finished his legacy. Vastly unfinished, especially by biopic standards, “Jobs” fails hard and falls flat.

On the flip side, the writing for “Jobs” is some of the best in recent memory. Hard, compelling dramatic storytelling  with twists and turns at heart-quickening levels – “Steve Jobs” is completely alluring. While “Jobs” took the biopic approach, this story is based from an Aaron Sorkin screenplay backstage at three different unveilings. After writing the masterpiece screenplay for “The Social Network”, it’s been stated by “Steve Jobs” that this is his domain. The writing, again, is perfect. The pacing is perfect. But most importantly, nothing feels unfinished here. The story comes to a more than satisfying conclusion, and to be fair, while “Jobs” did take some refreshing risks, “Steve Jobs” quadruples them. This makes a surprising, interesting spellbinder of a movie that you would never expect from this film. This doesn’t feel at all like Oscar-bait or cash-grabbing, this movie wants to tell an absorbing story with some top-notch acting and directing. Perhaps if “Jobs” would have taken its time and actually had a script that was complete, it would have been great; but even then, it’s hard to beat an Aaron Sorkin screenplay directed at this caliber.

At the end of the day, “Jobs” is not a great film. Though it is made serviceable by: its mesmerizing lead performance, fine acting, 5-star sets/costumes, good soundtrack, some pretty good dialogue every now and again, and the fact that it had room to be much worse. While “Steve Jobs” is a masterpiece from its: outstanding acting, great score, phenomenal directing, perfect pacing, and some truly powerful storytelling. The best writing and film in general goes to “Steve Jobs”, no contest.

Winner and Best Film: “Steve Jobs”

I give “Jobs” 3/5 stars (by a fraction of a hair): ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

I give “Steve Jobs” 5/5 stars: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Logan Crews

My name is Logan Crews and I have loved the art of film my entire life and my personal collection includes 2,000+ (and growing) DVD’s and VHS’s.