Gizmodo's Kyle Wagner nails the first Jobs biopic as a bad montage of short clips that shows the mighty Apple leader as "a sociopath who systematically ruins his and others' lives, and is rewarded lavishly for it." The only thing that seems good about the movie is Ashton Kutcher (at times) and the supporting cast.
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak wrote this review in the Kinja comments:
I saw Jobs tonight. I thought the acting throughout was good. I was attentive and entertained but not greatly enough to recommend the movie. One friend who is in the movie said he didn't want to watch fiction so he wasn't interested in seeing it.
I suspect a lot of what was wrong with the film came from Ashton's own image of Jobs. Ashton made some disingenuous and wrong statements about me recently (including my supposedly having said that the 'movie' was bad, which was probably Ashton believing pop press headlines) and that I didn't like the movie because I'm paid to consult on another one. These are examples of Ashton still being in character. Either film would have paid me to consult, but the Jobs one already had a script written. I can't take that creative leadership from someone else. And I was turned off by the Jobs script. But I still hoped for a great movie.
As to compromising principles for money, I will add one detail left out of the film. When Apple decided not to reward early friends who helped, I gave them large blocks of my own stock. Because it was right. And I made it possible for 80 other employees to get some stock prior to the IPO so they could participate in the wealth.
I felt bad for many people I know well who were portrayed wrongly in their interactions with Jobs and the company. The movie ends pretty much where the great Jobs finally found product success (the iPod) and changed so many of our lives. I'm grateful to Steve for his excellence in the i-era, and his contribution to my own life of enjoying great products, but this movie portrays him having had those skills in earlier times.