Aaron Sorkin's "Steve Jobs" Is Elevated by Michael Fassbender...That's at Least Two Too Many Names for a Review Title.

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs is very much an Aaron Sorkin movie. It's not just because Sorkin wrote the script; it's because every second of it seems so calculated. Sorkin's scripts are famous for their rapid fire dialogue, and that's great, but sometimes they call attention to themselves because no one has actual conversations like the ones you see in Sorkin material. That's fine, but it can get distracting, especially when a film is pretty much a nonstop conversation.

Steve Jobs is structured around three launch events in Jobs's career. The film plays out in real time as he deals with a number of relationships: with his daughter (and her mother), Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg), and Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet). The film effortlessly moves from one chaotic confrontation to another, all while painting a complex picture of Jobs's character. It's all very effective and perfectly cast. Fassbender is sure to be nominated for Best Actor (he might even win), and Winslet could sneak in there as well.

So why does it seem like this review is leading up to one big "But..."? Before I get to that, let me make it clear that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and it could possibly be in my top ten at the moment. That written, Sorkin's material just feels too structured. This feels too pretentious to type, but the film calls attention to how perfectly made it is. I was too aware of how much sense it made for flashbacks to be intercut mid-conversation, and how perfectly timed out each conversation was. I suppose it was the real-time factor of it. It came across more like a play than a film. Not that that is a bad thing. And the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is not what you expect when you watch a biography, and that's a good thing, because biographies have become incredibly boring at this point. This film, which focuses on Jobs's tumultuous interactions with those closest to him, shows so much more about who he really was through conversation than any other film could do through a factually accurate timeline.

Beyond the Sorkin-ness of the film, Fassbender elevates the entire film. He doesn't look or sound like Jobs, and that's fine. A performance should not be an impression. He's playing the role as a character, not as a person. That is important because is presenting Jobs's character, not necessarily his actual life. That might seem very troubling, but it is not in this case because Jobs does not need another proper biography after the Kutcher film (which actually isn't that bad), not to mention the documentaries. Fassbender made the role his own rather than try to impersonate Jobs, and the film is that much better for it.

Steve Jobs could easily be called a perfect film, which is not necessarily a good thing. Perfection calls attention to itself at times and takes you out of the experience. That happens at times with Steve Jobs, but it is forgivable because everything about it is so good: the dialogue, the editing, the acting, the pacing. You might be aware you're watching an Aaron Sorkin film the whole time, but that's not a bad thing.

Steve Jobs receives a:

Maybe I'm Too Old, But "Dumb and Dumber To" Just Wasn't for Me.

Dumb and Dumber To

The look on Billy in 4C's face sums up my experience with this movie.

“We Should Stop Reviewing Comedies.”  That is the title of an article I wrote for my website over a year and a half ago, and I’ve stuck to it (aside from This Is the End, but I made an exception for that since it was an apocalyptic comedy).  After watching Dumb and Dumber To I felt compelled to break my own rule again.  The exception this time: a comedy sequel to a beloved movie from my youth. 

My argument for not reviewing comedies was basically that comedy is too subjective, and a critic’s sense of humor shouldn’t be held any higher than anyone else’s.  I still stand by that.  That said, I barely cracked a smile while watching this film, but others (and I’ve confirmed this based on a handful of positive reviews and plenty of comments on IMDb in support of the movie) will like it…maybe even love it.  I certainly d

on’t, but I’m not going to spend an entire review hating on a comedy that just didn’t strike my funny bone.  I am, however, going to spend an entire review wondering why this sequel felt so different that the first film…and I’ll probably hate on it a little too.

I love Dumb and Dumber.  Notice I used the present tense, “love,” not “loved”?  It is not a movie I aged out of enjoying.  In fact, I watched it a day after watching the sequel and still laughed aloud a few times.  It doesn’t make sense because this sequel features all of the original filmmakers.  It is written and directed by the Farrelly brothers and stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.  It’s also similar in plot: two idiots go on a road trip and unwittingly get involved in a criminal plot.  This is no prequel a la Dumb and Dumberer (which the original filmmakers had nothing to do with).  It should be something I love.  Why isn’t it?

The obvious answer is time.  I’m older, which (supposedly) means that “dumb” comedies no longer appeal to me.  I think that would be correct if this was not a sequel to a movie I liked.  If this was an original movie that made this amount of money ($60 million as I’m typing this) and had defenders online, then I would simply think, “I must be too old for this.”  I am not too old for this type of comedy, though.  When I watch the stupid comedies from my youth, I still find them funny.  Chalk that up to nostalgia if you like, but I honestly still enjoy the majority of the comedies I liked fifteen years ago. 

Time, I think, actually is the answer, though.  The problem is that, while my comedic sensibilities have not changed, the filmmakers’ have.  Some have criticized the film because the stars, now in their fifties, come across as dirty old men rather than harmless buffoons.  I can see this argument, but I think it’s more than that.  Here’s an example.  In the new film, Harry (Jeff Daniels) and Lloyd (Jim Carrey) yell out to a female scientist, “Show us your tits!”  This was seen as a misogynistic line by many (rightfully so), but it is in keeping with their behavior.  In the first film, Harry comments on a woman passing by: “Check out the funbags on that hosehound!”  Definitely misogynistic as well, but at least it’s more original that what a cliché construction worker would yell at a passerby.  Plus, the line was given after they were talking about being classy to show that they are, in fact, not classy at all.  The point is that the Farrelly brothers have gotten lazier.  Their characters have always been misogynistic, but they used to get a pass because the writing was a bit wittier and more innocent. 

That is how I felt across the board with this film.  The jokes and the people are the same, but the effort is gone.  I loved Dumb and Dumber for the quirkier moments.  The physical gags don’t crack me up any longer (Harry’s tongue stuck a ski lift just doesn’t do it for me these days), but the smaller moments of each actor’s performance still make me laugh (Lloyd laughingly saying, “Yeah ha ha!” when asked if he sold a dead bird to a blind kid.  Now all the nuance is gone.  Sure, they were always cartoonish, but they were tethered to reality at least a little bit.  They’ve gone full blown cartoon now.  Give me the literal toilet humor of the first film any day over Harry and Lloyd glowing from radiation poison after bathing near a nuclear power plant.  These guys were not immortal the first time around. 

I could go on and on like this with examples of gags that worked the first time that were duplicated to lesser effect this time around.  But that would be too exhausting, and I think you get why I don’t like it by now.  I’ll finish by repeating that the film might, and does, work for others, but I can’t appreciate it as something separate from the beloved first film.  I guess I just haven’t aged enough comedically…and I hope I never do.

Dumb and Dumber To receives a: