Review: Jobs

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

A man sitting next to me in a screening of “Jobs” was moved to such boredom that he took out his iPhone in the middle of the film to check in on his various social media sites. I wonder what Steve Jobs would say about that. I don’t think he ever envisioned someone would be watching a movie about his life and would become so bored that they would have to turn to their iPhone. Unfortunately, that’s what “Jobs” is : a tedious bore that will make you want to turn to any number of Apple or Apple-inspired products to keep you awake.

We all know Steve Jobs already. Almost all of you are probably reading this review on something Jobs designed (if you’re on a desktop, you’ve got your mouse; if you’re on a Smartphone, our website statistics suggest its probably an iPhone). What “Jobs” attempts to show us is the personal side of the man, and how he built a computer company from his adopted parents’ garage.

We begin with Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) dropping out of Reed College in the mid-1970s. We see his interest in the calligraphy classes he continued to audit. We see him travel to India with his friend Daniel Kottke (Lukas Haas). He eventually finds himself working for Atari helping to design games. With the help of his best friend Steve ‘Woz’ Wozniak (Josh Gad), the two design a great game for Atari called “Breakout”.

One day while hanging out with Woz, Jobs discovers a computer motherboard Woz has been working on that connects to the television. With Jobs’ insistence, the two decide to market the motherboard under the name Apple Computer. Soon, they’re given an investment from Mike Murkkula (Dermot Mulroney) to help pay for the mass production of what will become the Apple II. What follows is pretty much common knowledge within the world of business and technology. The film moves along up until the late 1990s.

That’s twenty years of time covered in 122 minutes. We’ve seen this time span covered before in other films, but in “Jobs”, the pacing is so painstakingly slow that it feels like they could have easily made it to the release of the iPad in the late 2000s. The film meanders with no guidance or direction, and feels more like a cheaply made TV movie.

This is not, however, a knock on the performance given by Kutcher. He’s done some drama roles here and there before taking on “Jobs”, but I think this is the first serious role he’s had. He turns in a truly fantastic performance. I’m not so certain this is exactly what Jobs was really like or not. I’ve heard that Jobs was so intimidating that Apple employees wouldn’t even get on an elevator with him when the doors opened and he was standing in there. That’s power based on fear. Kutcher portrays Jobs as a driven and determined individual. He shows a few fits of rage that Jobs was known for, but overall Kutcher portrays him as a man with such determination that he always seems to be on the verge of tears.

As for his best friend Woz, comedic actor Josh Gad turns in an equally impressive performance. Gad is probably most well known for his most recent appearance as a series regular on the short lived series “1600 Penn” and also as an original cast member on the Boradway musical “The Book of Mormon”. He can now add to his resume that he’s also a proficient dramatic actor as well. Occasionally he provides the comic relief, but for the most part he plays the part very well. The scenes featuring only him and Kutcher are some of the best in the film.

The performances can only go as far as the script allows them, and unfortunately the screenplay isn’t really worth a whole lot. Written by first timer Matt Whiteley, the screenplay lacks any direction or overall vision. There’s no story being told here. It flows out like a documentary with no story structure at all. We’re taken from one well known episode of Jobs’ career to the next without any guidance. I wish I could give Whiteley a pass for being a first time screenwriter, but I can’t. Jobs led an interesting life but according to this film, his life must have been pretty boring.

He highlights Jobs’ drive and passion, but we never really see what it is that drives him. The desire to be the first and to be innovative maybe, but that doesn’t ever sink in to the film. Anyone who has done a little reading on Jobs (I have, as I am not afraid to admit my Apple admiration and addiction) probably knows his drive is based on making the best products out there; being at the crossroads of technology and innovation. But where did this come from? We’re treated to a sequence of Jobs tripping on LSD, and then suddenly he’s criticizing how the individual circuits on the board are a little lopsided. The screenplay just assumes we know he’s attentive to detail, and asks us to accept that this is the way it is. Walter Isaacson wrote an immense biography on Jobs shortly before his death in 2011. I’m sure there’s a wealth of information that could have been gained from that unprecedented access behind shroud of secrecy that was Jobs’ life. But it appears Whiteley didn’t want to do the research into Jobs’ life, only the life of the company he created.

Director Joshua Michael Stern couldn’t even save the film from its dry script. He plugs the audience along on this two hour journey about as quickly as the original Macintosh 128k renders graphics. It makes me realize that the only reason this film was made was to show off how much Kutcher resembles Steve Jobs. Showcasing how much he’s grown as an actor seems to be a fringe benefit. Stern has seemed to let the script direct him instead of the other way around. That never ends well, as evident here.

While “Jobs” isn’t a complete disaster – thanks to the wonderful acting – it is by no means a great film. There are plenty of fascinating documentaries available that move along at a much more brisk pace than this. This felt rushed. The man has only been deceased for less than two years, and we already have a biopic about him. Another movie about Jobs is in the works which is being scripted by Aaron Sorkin. I think that might be the definitive Steve Jobs film. It’ll at least move fast. Unlike this unimaginative bore. A movie about Steve Jobs shouldn’t be unimaginative, unoriginal or boring. These are three words exactly zero people on this planet would use to describe Steve Jobs. 

Review: We're The Millers

by. Joe Moss

★★★

Rawson Marshall Thurber, best known for "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," has struck gold again with 2013's "We're the Millers." At times the movie seems a throwback to the National Lampoon's adventures of the 1980's. There's plenty of tongue-in-cheek humor to keep the majority of the audience laughing tirelessly throughout the entire movie. Sure, there are a few down points that make you roll yours eyes, but the movie picks up quickly and you hardly even realize the 110 minutes have flown by...then the blooper reels start to flash. DEFINITELY stay through the bloopers as it ends with the BEST scene that should have remained in the film [in my humble opinion]. 

David Clark (SNL Alum Jason Sudeikis) is a happy-go-lucky, small-time drug dealer with no cares or major responsibilities. He inadvertently helps his awkward, teenage neighbor, Ken Rossmore (Will Poulter) stop a homeless girl, Kasey Mathis (Emma Roberts), from getting mugged. In the process--HE gets mugged, looses his sales money and has to pay the ultimate price for his spontaneous "good guy" moment--become a drug smuggler for his boss, Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms) or be killed.

In order to pull this drug smuggling venture off (drug smuggling IS different from drug dealing), David realizes that he needs the perfect cover--and is struck by the revelation that he needs to have a family traveling in an RV. He enlists the help of Ken and Kasey easily; however, a guy with 2 kids looks rather weird and "perverted." David needs a wife--so he asks another of his neighbors, the stripper, Rose (Jennifer Aniston). Initially, she rebuffs his offer, but once her boss decides to "up the ante" of what is offered at work, she has an immediate change of heart for David's offer. Thus the shenanigans begin...with a multitude of SNL type interplay and plenty of sexual innuendo to keep everyone laughing til tears begin to fall.

The screenplay by Bob Fisher and Steve Faber, the creative team behind the 2005 mega-hit, Wedding Crashers, have another gem on their hands. They have definitely written the screenplay with their actors' personalities and strengths in mind.

Even so, Aniston is far and away the STAR of this film--providing not only the glue that keeps the plot together, but is by far the most believable presence on screen.  Her lines are delivered effortlessly allowing everyone else to quickly fall into sync and showcase their own personalities without having to attempt to overact. I think that she has shown the best evolution as an actress over the past decade. If this film is any indication of things to come, watch out Meryl Streep.

This film also introduces everyone to the comedic genius of English-born actor Will Poulter (Voyage of Dawn Treader). While Aniston clearly runs away with the commanding presence of the film, Will has some of the best comedic moments and is clearly not afraid to sacrifice his body for the easy laugh. Emma Roberts (Nancy Drew) provides a solid counterpoint of cynicism to his awkward, but hilarious moments on screen.

Having gone into this movie fully expecting all of the funny moments to have been included in the trailer, I have to say that my wife and I laughed continuously the entire film. It was easily one of the funniest films I have seen this year. If you are a big fan of Saturday Night Live (c) or Chelsea Lately (c), you should easily love this film.

Review: Elysium

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★

“Elysium” takes place in the year 2154. At this time, the citizens of earth are split up into two different classes. The very wealthy live on a pristine space station orbiting above the planet called Elysium. Everyone else lives on the surface of earth which is a very poor place, overpopulated and heavily diseased. On Elysium, there is no disease because each house comes equipped with a med-bay that scans your body and fixes anything wrong with you. Cancers are cured, paralyzed people can walk again and broken bones are healed.

The story revolves around a citizen of earth named Max (Matt Damon) who works for a top defense contractor called Armadyne, which provides all the police robots on earth and the security systems on board Elysium. He’s also a reformed felon trying to keep himself on the good side of the law. His former partner in crime Julio (Diego Luna) even tries to get him to join in on new jobs, but Max refuses to participate. He’s also reconnected with his childhood friend Frey (Alice Braga) who he hasn’t seen in years, and he’s eager to see if there might be a future between the two of them.

Things change for Max when he’s exposed to a high dose of radiation and is given only five days left to live. He knows the med-bays on Elysium will cure him, so he asks the local crime boss Spider (Wagner Moura) for help getting up there. Spider wants Max’s help stealing something from a rich guy first. They want to steal the thoughts from Armadyne CEO John Carlyle (William Fichtner) in order to get bank numbers and other valuable information about Elysium.

What they don’t know is that Carlyle is working with Elysium Secretary of Defense Delacourt (Jodie Foster) on plans that would remove the current President from power and install her as the new leader. When Max and Spider steal the information from Carlyle, they get this information as well. Delacourt sends out Kruger (Sharlto Copley), a ruthless agent, after Max to get that damning information back.

Writer/director Neill Blomkamp, known for directing the 2009 Best Picture nominee “District 9”, is, in my opinion, too smart to be making movies in the first place. Listening to him do interviews is like listening to an astrophysicist talk about what they do for a living. “District 9” was a smart film and a modern day sci-fi masterpiece. But all the things that made “District 9” so great have been scrapped from “Elysium”. Instead, Blomkamp has given us way too many dense subplots that distract from the main characters and plotline of the film.

Its hard to care for your protagonist when there are so many other people clogging up his screen time. Not once did I find myself caring whether of not Max would get up to Elysium and be cured. I know that sounds harsh, but that’s Screenwriting 101. How can you care about someone when setup and development are sacrificed in order to give an equal amount setup and development to a supporting character? Supporting roles do not need the same type of attention that lead roles require.

Blomkamp should know this. His screenplay for “District 9” was so well done because it was so simple. There was one character and we were shown what he was like before the traumatic events on the film began to unfold. He was easily identifiable with the audience. In “Elysium”, Max doesn’t fit this mold. He’s set up as an everyman working in a low paying yet physically demanding job, he’s trying to better his life, he’s trying to reconnect with a former love interest. It couldn’t be anymore forced or contrived if they tried.

None of the talent on screen is overly impressive either. We’ve seen Damon and Foster in these roles before. The only actor who’s actually doing something we’ve never seen before is Copley. His role as Kruger is quite the polar opposite of what he was in “District 9” which is refreshing. I did enjoy Kruger’s character in this film. He’s a ruthless man out for blood, and Copley plays it very well.

Its also full of sharp action sequences, which isn’t a surprise given that Blomkamp has already demonstrated himself as a proficient action director. But polished action scenes and fancy special effects alone do not make a good movie. I feel like Blomkamp rushed this one, which is weird given that its been four years since we’ve seen anything from him. What looked like a promising break from the typical summer films, “Elysium” falls into the exact same traps that plague every other movie that comes out of Hollywood during the hottest months of the year. From the man who gave us something as brilliant as “District 9”, this is quite a disappointment.