What was the consensus here about this back when it was released?

What was the consensus here about this back when it was released?

We didn't really have one because no one really watched it.

Jim Carrey's best performance.

You can't leave Truman

SAY SOMETHING GOD DAMNIT YOU'RE ON TELEVISION

I ALREADY FIRED YOU

This

But I did and it was above average

do we really need 5 Steve Jobs movies in 4 years?

no we fucking dont. nobody watched it.

>expect Goldeneye thread
>see filename

I can't tell you how disappointed I was in this movie. I was one of the ten people nation wide who actually showed up to see this movie and it was the most mediocre script only made tolerable by incredibly strong acting.

Quite a weak movie.
Felt like something they whipped up in a weekend.
This really brings Danny's credibility into question. Has he ever had any?

>mediocre script
really? the script that won the Golden Globes was mediocre? sorry, mate, but mediocre it was not. i saw it at a beach club, i'm in miami, and was amazed by Sorkin's audacious screenplay, Boyle's direction, and the acting by Fassbender, Winslet, and Daniels. the scenes with the daughter were really poignant as well as the sequence in the middle when Job was outed from the company. the movie really was outstanding.

you're right. the kutcher movie and then the documentary came out around the same time. audiences just didn't feel like flocking to see this. their loss because it's a damn fine film with an amazing screenplay.

>Expect World Is Not Enough

I liked the way it was presented (as four seperate occassions showcasing Jobs' personality) instead of another boring biopic. The banter between Jobs and his partner (Winslet) was excellent. Other than that it wasn't particularly memorable.

Aaron Sorkin films are always fun to watch just to imagine being so witty as the characters.

I don't really care if it won a Golden Globe or not. I'm sure we can both list a number of movies who won awards that they shouldn't have.

The script was absolutely awful. A movie split literally into three acts where the exact same thing happens over and over is not interesting. Like I said, it was saved by absolutely astounding acting but the story itself was incredibly weak.

I'm an avid Sorkin fan too. I've rewatched The West Wing several times, enjoyed the Newsroom (the first season at least), I even watched Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It's part of why I was so excited to see the movie. What I saw was his trademark rhythm but not a quality structure. The second time every one got into a fight and he had an argument with his daughter right before an unveiling it had already gotten old.

Great concept and Jim Carrey delivered a solid performance.
The Truman Show is already a classic.

I really liked his performance in Tomorrow Never Dies.

it's okay not to like a film and not consider it awful, mate. i found the three part structure a breath of fresh air from other biopics. apparently, so did the hw foreign press and numerous adapted screenplay nominations. i agree with you about the acting, but the screenplay had fireworks and more than held its own expertly weaving multiple themes primarily through dialogue - not an easy feat. the conflict between characters never got old in my eyes and i've seen the film twice. to each their own.

oops.

I don't think that I have to preface my comments with "IMO" every time I'm expressing an opinion in a thread that explicitly asked for people's opinion.

I thought it was awful and explained why. You're the one trying to tell me that your opinion is the correct one. There's lots of movies that I don't like but I can accept them as fine films, this is not one of them.

With the incredible repetition of the movie I felt like I'd seen it three times by the end. I saw it opening night so it's been several months since I've seen it now or I'd give you a more comprehensive list of what I believe it's failings to be.

Amazing movie. Its barely about Steve Jobs anyway. Fassbender and winslet are great. Rogan was great. And sorkin writing is great. The "Why do people think I fired you" scene gives me chills.

Appeals to authority (especially in an almost exclusively subjective field) is an incredibly weak argument (and actually a logical fallacy).

nah, not trying to tell you my opinion is correct, mate. i'm simply informing you that disliking a film and calling it awful are separate distinctions. the film had a string of accolades and was well-reviewed, but you didn't like the movie so it's awful? nah, mate, nah.

indeed, appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, yet am i wrong here? the film is expertly crafted, expertly acted, expertly written. i don't need much of an argument to make those points, a weak and lazy one will do.

Let me see if I can say this in a way that you'll grasp:

I did not like the movie. I did not like the movie because I believe that it made massive errors in story structure, pacing, and character development. If a movie is a sum of it's parts, and you believe the parts to be bad, you will think that the movie is bad. I believe it had faulty inner workings and was given high accolades because Aaron Sorkin has written some of the best screenplays in modern times and people are eager to praise Danny Boyle because he too has made some fantastic movies.

It's easier to watch the movie and assume that Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin did good jobs because they're major players and reviewers are largely in a feedback loop. It's the same way most movies win at the Oscars. Just take a look at how many people vote for movies that they've never seen just because they've heard good things. It's the same thing when it comes to wine tasting. If you tell someone a wine is more expensive they're more likely to think it tastes delicious.

i think we're just posting in circles here. the only distinction i was making was that the film wasn't awful.

however, it's a bit of a reach when you assume the feedback loop is a valid reason for the positive associations audiences had with the film. for my part, i genuinely felt empathy for the daughter, Wozniak, Sculley, and Jobs as they were presented in the narrative. i'm not a particular fan of Boyle, but i do have a hankering for Sorkin's work.

anyways, i'm out, dinner won't make itself. i don't think there's any points to concede here. i believe the film was well-crafted and deftly written. you not so much.

I really liked the three solid acts, but the filler montages felt like they'd been culled from a longer movie and didn't gel with film proper at all.

They should have just worked that material into the main sequences or made it long enough to accommodate them without switching between styles.

you belong here

with me