New Steve Jobs biopic continues to tank

After earning a pitiful $6.7 million nationally its opening weekend, the new movie about Apple co-founder Steve Jobs continued to stumble through its second week, earning only $3 million this past weekend, for a total so far of $12 million.

By comparison, “Kick-Ass 2” has made nearly twice that amount over the same period.

The reviews, too, continue to hurt:

“A box-office disappointment,” writes Serenity Caldwell of Macworld.

“No real underlying story, no real character development,” says Emily Price of Mashable.

“At least 20 minutes of the story could have been edited,” suggests someone named Smitha with

“Jobs,” which hit theaters 10 days ago, continues to elicit passionate reviews. Passionately bad.

Rotten Tomatoes, the film-review aggregator, called “Jobs”  “an ambitious but skin-deep portrait of an influential, complex figure, Jobs often has the feel of an over-sentimentalized made-for-TV biopic.”


Adding insult to injury, Rotten’s index gave Jobs a measly score of 26 out of 100, just about what “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” received.

A few reviewers found redeeming qualities in the film. The Financial Times’ Christopher Caldwell, who may or may not be Serenity’s dad, described the biopic as a “corporate hagiography for the YouTube age.”

Oh, those crazy Brits, making up words like “hagiography” as if we couldn’t spot a fake.

Anyway, here are a few choice excerpts from reviews culled from the blogosphere.

From Entrepreneur: 


One early scene in Jobs has Steve Jobs sitting miserably at the side of a stage, looking on as partner Steve Wozniak fumbles through their first presentation at the Homebrew Computer Club in a Stanford University classroom. Nerdy Woz is all technical details — no magic. That scene loomed large as I thought about the film and how disappointing it was.  Show, don’t tell is one of the tenets of storytelling, and its close cousin, presenting, is an art which Jobs perfected. And that’s what is wrong with the Jobs biopic. It’s all about telling, rather than showing.

From Oneindia:

You might think that a movie on Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder (along with Steve Wozniak) and chief executive officer (CEO) is the best way to pay respects to one of the most iconic figures in the tech industry. Well you are not wrong! But what should have been a true biopic of the legend ends up as a mere sketch of the man.

And last but not least (and certainly not the nicest), from the Washington Post:

The problem is not with the actor but with the film itself.

Directed by Joshua Michael Stern (“Swing Vote”) and written by first-time screenwriter Matt Whiteley, “Jobs” confuses the story of Apple, the company, with the story of its guru and guiding force, spending way too much time on backroom personnel dealings than on encounters that might help us understand, on a deep level, the title character. Admittedly, the story of Jobs’s entrepreneurship is a fascinating one in its own right, and the film makes it clear that he was as much a corporate shark as a creative visionary.

Yet even as the movie tracks the ups and down of Jobs’s career, it gets bogged down in the fate of other, less central — and frankly less interesting — players. Is the film’s abridged parade of Apple CEOs — Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney), John Sculley (Matthew Modine) and Gil Amelio (Kevin Dunn) — really of interest to anyone besides Apple geeks?

Enjoy the show!

Credit: The Washington Post


Tags: ,


Share this Post

  • Karen

    Remember, “Jobs” didn’t cost that much to make. So I reckon that it will make its money back eventually, and that would mean that it’s not a bomb.
    “Jobs” isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not very good.

    “Pirates of Silicon Valley,” which actually is a made-for-TV biopic, did a much better job of telling its story.