In December, the Oscars season officially started, and the Film Critics Association, the Screen Actors Guild, the Golden Globe Awards, and major outposts all showed signs—unexpectedly, the awards were varied. Sing in various tunes, causing people to exclaim again and again. The Oscar ceremony, which will be held at the end of February, is therefore heavily foggy, especially for actors. The shuffling index can be said to be clean and smooth.
This wave of popular Oscar-winning films is a live-action legend that has a flat momentum and is still in the award-winning forest. Directed by Danny Bowie and starring Michael Fassbender, "Steve Jobs" ".
Jobs is the big guy who can't get out of your pocket and desktop.
For example, Mark Zuoberg and Bill Gates, since the 21st century, the leaders of the Internet prosperous world at the top of the pyramid have continuously reversed the history of civilization with their thinking beyond the times, and they have undoubtedly benefited billions of human beings.
Hollywood naturally does not miss this trend, and many short stories about the pioneers of business opportunities have also emerged one after another. It seems that the wisdom of business warfare is compressed into a tube of inspirational injection, which is bombarded into the brain quickly, and it looks like the same thing. The CP value may be higher than the inspirational book.
However, compared to "Social Network Wars" and "The Wolf of Wall Street", two masterpieces that have won the attention of the Oscars and their rhythm is also very close to the pulse of the times, is "Steve Jobs" lucky or unlucky? It was enough to make a big fuss with the other "Jobs" two years ago. After turning around, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kristen Bell successively rejected the role, and Michael Fassbender came under pressure. .
In all fairness, although Leo and Bell are a little older than Fassbender, they are pure in appearance, and the baby-faced two are more qualified for this kind of struggle than the old Fassbender. width. In addition, there is no shortage of Ashton Kutcher, whose acting skills are several times more tender, and his appearance is far more similar to Jobs himself than Fassbender.
Did you say crash or not?
First of all, such twin cases are not rare in film history. Whether Liang Zhu in the first half century or Coboti ten years ago, the general result is: one went to heaven, and the other was uninterested.
"Jobs", launched in 2013, was led by Ashton Kutcher, who made it clear that it was a sacrifice and a mess. The superficiality and cheapness of the film have become more and more dazzling after the interaction of the vulgar work of "The Theory of Everything". The lighting is simply exaggerated and similar to the scene where Hawking and his second wife Elaine Mason first met: shallow, boring, tasteless, and extremely clumsy...
With such a bright twin brother, the advent of "Steve Jobs" , The first reassurance pill that I ate, and the first recommendation is to have the escort of Alan Sorkin, the super screenwriter who is the most capable of crawling and combing the golden brain in the world.
"Magic Ball" has the kind of life situation of losing horses, regret is the aftertaste, everyone has a heart, this time, Alan Sorkin, who is witty, has adopted theatrical switching of light and shadow, focusing on several key product announcements in Jobs' life Yes, to construct the eloquent grammar that he is particularly good at. But Allen is obviously quite clear that the success or failure of the script lies in the fact that the "product launch conference" and other fields cannot be simply extended to the stage of life; of course, under the operation of highly diluting the characters and compressing the depth of time, the world is destined to Curious, this "lonely" narrative strategy is to avoid the confusion of Ashton Kutcher's shoddy work? Reduce the difficulty of Fassbender's years of makeup? Or is it convenient to sway "Magic Ball" and "Social Network Wars", Sorkin's wonderful dialogues that fly freely?
This version of Jobs went all the way, and there is no shortage of good writing. Ju Fan: Pepsi President John Sculley, who betrayed him, his former partner Steve Woznick, and the loyal Joanna Hoffman, who come and go with each other, who are powerful and sharp, have powerfully defined the era. Bloody storms, scheming betrayal.
No blood, more blood.
His eloquent narrative character also highlights the heavy task of the actors. Seth Rogen, who played Woznick, was particularly surprising. He attacked with seriousness in the opposite direction. At first glance, he could not recognize the nonsensical clown of "Haunted Neighbors" and "Famous Mouths on a Mission". In today's competitive Hollywood, Seth Rogen has undoubtedly once again deepened his ability and recognition, and has great prospects in the future.
As for Michael Fassbender, who plays the protagonist, he is very good at acting, we all know that, but compared with the psychological spectacle of "Sex Addicted Man" before, the role of Jobs is very familiar to him, which is completely reflected in the Jobs himself faced various challenges with the calm and indifferent confidence. Fassbender's face, whether passionate or eccentric, was unexpectedly superb. Although I don't think it's a bad thing, when you come to the Oscar battlefield, a character who is too invulnerable always suffers.
The most obvious misstep in "Steve Jobs" is that "Success is also Xiaokai, and defeat is Xiaokai."
A few years ago, Danny Bowie's "Slumdog Millionaire" was the peak of the golden figure, and it was also the year after Kate Winsley's "Reading For Love" was sealed. Lei" is a small failure.
Kate Winsley's crisp, lotus-biting narration has always been helpful and distracting to the film's narrative over the years. The directors all know that she can act very well, and she can bite words to the point of exhaustion and headache. As far as "Steve Jobs" is concerned, most of her noise is interesting, but the paint is rustling and brushed to the back, obviously overdrafting rational sensibility, and it is difficult to hide the sense of confusion that it is wrong to be wrong - even so, fans are very fond of Joan. Anna's corner cuts back to Little Kate without warning, I'm afraid it's no surprise.
In comparison, although both Jeff Daniel and Kate Winslet are good actors who "play themselves" and have a lot of signature expressions, Jeff Daniel has accumulated unsatisfactory achievements since the TV series "News Pioneer" in recent years. The image of intellectuals forms a film that melts in your mouth, and the smoothness of the character is obviously better than that of Kate Winslet.
The presentation of the role of Jobs' ex-girlfriend Christian is even more interesting. Danny Bowie casts the notorious Kathleen Waterston for the interpretation—the eccentric accent, coupled with a whimpering, dead-faced and justified "artificial bitterness," infuses the character with subtlety. , the transition from the 1970s to the 1980s female sampling. A highly recognizable destined to be ordinary, the blame for winning the jackpot, but not being able to exchange it.
Character after character revolves around Jobs, a character who rewrites the world, but whose clothes are as simple as you and me.
In all fairness, despite the well-known reputation of Jobs, how much objective knowledge do ordinary people have about Jobs' career? Movies are taboo in detail, but they must not be swallowed whole. The plot marks that were laid out in 2013's "Jobs" were solved for "Steve Jobs" two years later. The audience has met the former, and the latter seems to be much easier to digest. "Steve Jobs" maliciously stepped on the running account of the vulgar and inferior work two years ago, and walked slowly, as if climbing on the back of a snake. Centipede.
The declaration of revenge to bring back a city is obviously bigger than the eruption of the aesthetic core... There are too many ink stains on the pen, and the ink spots left on the pen intentionally or unintentionally are not flaws, but clues.
Danny Bowie, who has made epoch-making and avant-garde works such as "Trainspotting", this time the most embarrassing thing is that he can't get rid of the "explaining to the audience". The key scene that made me make this assertion is the solitude moment of Jobs facing the gains and losses in life. The movie flashes a small moment when his daughter Lisa uses painting software when she was a child. One vibration - this kind of sudden and indescribable inspirational signal, for creators like me, it is electrified and deeply sympathetic. Unfortunately, Danny Bowie succumbed to the Hollywood system, and then, very quickly, we saw a series of interspersed comparisons, providing easy-to-understand logic, making causal statements, showing the collision of new and old, father and daughter. This snake-footed move contrasts the cruelty of a competent director who can't catch up with the computer geniuses of the last century. Danny Bowie obediently returned to the "tell you to understand" system, and followed the machine front dialogue step by step.
So gorgeous, so what?
Compared with David Fincher's "Social Network Wars", it is not only brilliant, but simply defines the legendary models of the new century, and creates greatness in lightness. Although the fluent "Steve Jobs" is not disappointing, it has limited sparks, and it is difficult to cover the arrogance and arrogance of the protagonist Jobs beyond the times.
That is to say, Alan Sorkin is not altruistic this time; this is obviously a screenwriter-guided movie, and the director Danny Bowie can only "listen to him", and there is little room for intervention.
The centipede climbed onto the back of the snake, not who won or lost, but smiled slightly ahead.
View more about Steve Jobs reviews
