The script is still very Sorkin - the characters are distorted, like a free play but high-level fan literature, people who like Sorkin, like me, don't really believe that the real person in the film will be that kind of virtue, no Like him naturally to criticize his exaggeration. So here I steer clear of the script itself and just talk about the movie. What I think the film lacks the most is the director's control. The main line revolves around three press conferences, but the focus of the film is on portraying Jobs' personal image. Shark's face is nothing but his swearing lines without dirty words. Speaking of image, Steve Jobs under Boyle's lens can only make me realize that this is a genius who is completely inhuman and cold but idealistic and fanatical. High-end black Joe gang leader? Or is it just to assist the Fa shark to compete for a golden man?
To be honest, because the screenwriter was still the screenwriter of "Social", there is a little shadow of "Social" in the script, and there are plots such as conflict of interest and betrayal of friends, all centered on depicting an impersonal genius, but "Social" The brilliance of "Social" lies in the shooting techniques and the development and promotion of the plot. The two trials are used as the background of the film. The plaintiff and the defendant insist on what happened. As the trial progresses gradually, the truth becomes more and more blurred. When the defendant and the plaintiff are arguing endlessly, the characters in the film are divided. The emotional and psychological conflict brought to a climax. Not only is Zuckerberg's portrayal very successful, but each character is actually deeply rooted in people's hearts. Compared with "Jobs", although the protagonist is a jerk-like genius, the idea of "Social" is not only to talk about an arrogant social idiot, but also to talk about the ideal beauty and the cruelty of competing interests. At this point On, "Jobs" is too lack of expressiveness.
They are all hall-level directors, and I am not good at judging who is better or worse, they are not the same type. Boyle is really not suitable for such a movie with a large amount of information that needs to quickly schedule the plot. He needs to be slow, and he needs the role of each shot to unfold slowly, paving the way, even if the paving is very subtle. He's still better at subtle on-camera language rather than dramatic conflict. One of the things that Boyle did very badly in the movie is that he even deliberately strengthened Jobs' ruthlessness, but did not give enough scenes to show the things behind his personality, so he made "Jobs" high-end black. feel. In "Social" everyone is looking for profit, in "Jobs" all I remember is Jobs being a jerk. I can't say that only Fincher made the script for Sorkin's biography, but I think the film's schedule might be better if this script was replaced by Fincher.
Overall, Sorkin is Sorkin, but Danny Boyle is so disappointing to me.
View more about Steve Jobs reviews
