Club Benefits
While browsing the Netflix movie library this week, I had a moment of instant excitement followed by intense disappointment. Every week, I comb through the streaming service’s latest additions to pick out the gems worth recommending to readers, and today (March 10), Netflix added “Jobs,” a biographical flick that recounts the life of visionary Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
So why am I disappointed? Because, for just a split second, I misread the title and thought Netflix just got “Steve Jobs,” the 2015 biographical flick that recounts the life of visionary Apple CEO Steve Jobs. It’s a little confusing, I know. Essentially, within just over two years, Hollywood delivered two Steve Jobs biopics. The first stars Ashton Kutcher as the eponymous tech innovator, but in the latter, Michael Fassbender steps into the role.
These two biopics might seem interchangeable on the surface, but trust me, having watched both, they could not be further apart in quality and cinematic craft. If “Steve Jobs” is an industry-changing iPod, “Jobs” is a Microsoft Zune. Unfortunately, Netflix added the wrong movie this week. Here’s why any viewer curious to see the life (and fascinating career) of Steve Jobs depicted on screen needs to make the only correct choice between these two efforts.
Article continues below‘Jobs’ is a bland biopic that feels made for television
“Jobs” might have gotten out of the gate first, which is probably why it managed to be the higher-grossing film of the two biopics, but it most certainly has a rushed-to-market quality. From the very first scene — which sees Jobs (played by Kutcher) reveal the first-generation iPod to a crowd of Apple employees — it feels like a made-for-TV feature. It’s got a Lifetime vibe.
This schmaltzy scene is the movie in a nutshell. As Jobs takes the iPod out of his trademark blue jeans pocket and holds it up to the amazed onlookers, the sentimental music hits a crescendo, and the crowd goes wild. It’s almost nauseating in its complete lack of subtlety. The scene then dissolves back to 1970s Reed College, and the movie then follows Jobs' life and career in the most predictable, cookie-cutter “greatest hits” biopic formula possible.
I can’t even lay the blame for the movie’s failure at Kutcher’s feet. He does a respectable job playing Jobs, and if you care about such things, he certainly more closely resembles a young Steve compared to Michael Fassbender. Fassbender looks nothing like the Apple co-founder. If he didn’t don Jobs’ iconic black turtleneck, you’d likely never clock him as the tech visionary.
The issue with “Jobs” as a movie is quite simply that it takes the least ambitious option at every junction. Taking a mundane approach to chronicling Steve’s life, and attempting to cram in decades of his career within a two-hour runtime. It’s the movie equivalent of an “unofficial” biographical book. Yes, there’s plenty of factual information, but a real lack of personality.
‘Steve Jobs’ is a masterful drama, and a much better pick
2015’s “Steve Jobs,” on the other hand, swings for the fences and makes a powerful connection. Directed by Danny Boyle, with “The Social Network’s” Aaron Sorkin’s on-screenwriting duties. This biographical drama isn’t always concerned with historical accuracy, but it trades getting every detail right for a dramatically rich story. That's an exchange I'd personally take every time.
Most ingeniously, rather than telling Jobs’ story by following him every step of the way, it’s presented more like a play, with a unique and utterly masterful three-chapter structure. Each act is set backstage before a product launch: the Macintosh in 1984, the NeXT in 1988 and the iMac in 1998. While flashbacks are used sporadically to provide key context when needed, for the most part, this window into Jobs’ life is restrained and told through intense dialogue.
Fassbender might not have the look down, but his portrayal of Jobs is electric, presenting the industry-leading figure as a deeply flawed genius, more in love with his products than people, and yet proud of that fact. Plus, you’ve got excellent support from Kate Winslet as confident Joanna Hoffman, Jeff Daniels as ex-Apple CEO John Sculley and Seth Rogen as Steve “Woz” Wozniak. Each plays their part perfectly, and the heated exchange between Sculley and Jobs minutes before the NeXT launch is one of the best scenes of 2010s cinema.
I regularly find myself rewatching my favorite parts of “Steve Jobs,” like the scene where Wozniak practically begs Jobs to give the Apple II team a shoutout during the iMac unveiling, a small request that Jobs patently refuses. This tense standoff between two of the technologies' most renowned men has more drama, intrigue and excitement than the entirety of “Jobs.”
If you’re looking to watch a movie all about Steve Jobs this week, it’s not even a contest in my eyes; the 2015 effort wins by a landslide. You’d be a fool to make any other choice. Unfortunately, “Steve Jobs” is not currently streaming on Netflix. However, it is available on Peacock (though it leaves at the end of the month), or you can buy/rent it on Amazon or Apple TV, which naturally feels like a particularly appropriate place to watch the movie.
If you don’t have a Peacock subscription and aren’t willing to cough up a rental fee to watch “Steve Jobs,” then I encourage you to check out this guide to the latest new to Netflix movies with at least 90% or higher on Rotten Tomatoes, for an overview of the best recent arrivals on the platform.
Watch "Jobs" on Netflix, and "Steve Jobs" on Peacock now
Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds.
More from Tom's Guide
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
