Michael Fassbender may be the busiest man making movies. The guy is always working. To give you an idea, he appeared in three movies last year and has a whopping five movies slated for a 2016 release. But here’s the great thing – whether he is starring in a huge superhero franchise or smaller independent cinema, Fassbender always delivers rock solid performances. “Steve Jobs” adds to that reputation.

This is the second Steve Jobs biopic within a three year span and the upgrades we get in this film are significant. Fassbender takes the lead role. Danny Boyle directs. Word wizard Aaron Sorkin writes the screenplay. The story is adapted from Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography and mixes in information gathered from Sorkin’s numerous interviews with Jobs’ associates.

The film wisely steers clear of being an exhaustive biopic. Instead it functions in a three chapter structure, each coinciding with a new product launch from the Apple co-founder. First is the Macintosh launch of 1984. Second is his NeXt computer of 1988. The last chapter jumps to 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac. Between these three pivotal moments in his life, Steve Jobs is faced with a number of professional and personal hurdles. Boyle and Sorkin manage to weave together so many narrative threads most of which rely on relationships that grow (or in many cases fester) as the film moves forward.

Much like with “The Social Network”, Sorkin doesn’t coddle his subject. He paints Jobs as the creative visionary he was, but our backstage access also shows an insufferable, insecure bully obsessed with total control. He constantly badgers his underlings and can’t bring himself to give anyone else the slightest bit of credit or consideration. The person who has an inside communication line with him is Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet), a marketing executive who is the only person besides himself he seems to depend on. It is a key relationship with Fassbender and Winslet each bringing needed levels of intensity.

Other relationships suffer at the hands of Jobs’ ego. Seth Rogen, an actor whose performances I generally find repellent, steps out of his norm and is great playing Steve Wozniak, Jobs’ old friend and Apple co-founder. I also enjoyed every scene featuring the naturally subdued Michael Stuhlbarg. He plays Andy Hertzfeld, an original Mac team member and “family friend” of Jobs. Jeff Daniels is really good as John Sculley, the CEO of Apple. All three chapters show each of these relationships in various stages of disrepair.

Perhaps the most damning scenes feature Jobs with his daughter Lisa. We first meet her at five years-old and she serves as a small window into Jobs’ private life. Jobs shamelessly denies he is her father and, despite his net worth, leaves her and her mother (Katherine Waterston) living on welfare. While Lisa showcases the more despicable side of Jobs, she also offers the one thin chance at redemption.

Boyle’s high-energy direction is a nice compliment to Sorkin’s dialogue. Boyle is known for pulling all sorts of visual tricks out of his hat. Here he shoots the 1984 segment in grainy 16mm, 1988 in 35mm, and 1998 in full digital. It’s such a cool way of distinguishing the time periods aside from the standard new haircuts and age-worn faces. Other than that Boyle doesn’t go overboard. We still get a few of those signature showy strokes, but otherwise he keeps everything nicely situated within the script’s theatrical boundaries.

And then we come back to Fassbender, critically praised and with an Oscar nomination to match. He handles Sorkin’s thick, tricky dialogue with profound surety. It’s a commanding performance that manages to make you admire him in one scene and detest him in the next. And aside from his great delivery, Fassbender channels his character’s complexities through every insecure smirk, every cut of the eyes, and every defiant stare.

There are a few things that left me curious. As with “The Social Network” Sorkin takes some enormous liberties depicting Steve Jobs all for the sake of drama. While Sorkin is never one to shy away from that fact, its understandable how some might take issue. And is it that common for everyone to have their meltdowns and emotional face-offs 30 minutes prior to every major technology presentation? That is certainly the case in all three chapters of “Steve Jobs”.

Aside from that “Steve Jobs” got its hooks in me right off the bat and kept me captivated for the duration. Despite the questions I had, it is so satisfying to watch good actors work with a whip-smart script and under very assured direction. All of these pieces do their parts in making “Steve Jobs” an usual but thoroughly entertaining biopic.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Let me preface this review by saying that I wasn’t the biggest fan of the previously two “Men in Black” movies. But I was certainly in the minority. The first “Men in Black” earned just under $600 million at the box office. The sequel brought in another $440 million. Obviously expectations are high for this third installment and it’s $300 million budget. Both Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are back as is director Barry Sonnenfeld and Steven Spielberg as Executive Producer.

It’s been almost 10 years since we last saw Agent K (Jones) and Agent J (Smith). K is still the stiff-as-a-board, emotionless, straight-shooter, J is still a rapid-fire wisecracker with attitude to spare, and aliens are still on earth masquerading as humans. They both still serve as operatives working for a secret agency commissioned to protect the Earth from alien threats. This time their main threat is an alien named Boris (Jemaine Clement). Agent K apprehended Boris back in 1969 and put him in a lunar prison designed specifically for him. But Boris escapes and travels back in time to kill Agent K before he is able to thwart his original plan. After noticing K’s absence and a difference in the timeline, J travels back to 1969 a few days prior to K’s death to protect him from Boris.

The movie starts off looking and feeling just like a “Men in Black” film. Funny exchanges between K and J and alien confrontations get the movie off on the right foot. There’s also a really cool time travel sequence as J heads back to 1969. It’s here that the movie both introduces it’s biggest asset as well as hit it’s biggest speed bumps. Josh Brolin plays the younger Agent K and he is fantastic. I swear there were times where I completely believed I was watching a younger Tommy Lee Jones instead of someone doing a Tommy Lee impersonation. Whether it’s his accent, his nicknames, or facial expressions, Brolin nails a 29-year old Agent K.

But while Brolin shines, the story really spins it’s wheels. There are a few back-in-time set pieces and late 60’s details that are fun but they get lost in the story that’s really pretty flat and lifeless. The humor loses it’s pop and seems to rely much too heavily on Will Smith’s quick wit. There’s great chemistry between Brolin and Smith but even it gets bogged down in the sometimes drab exposition. I have to admit, I found myself struggling to stay focused and interested in what was going on especially when an all-knowing alien named Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg) enters the picture. I did enjoy Emma Thompson and Alice Eve as the older and younger Agent O and the movie is a visual delight. I just wish there was more energy and substance to go with the movie’s stronger points.

While I did have issues with the middle of the movie, it was almost made up for by a really good and surprisingly tender ending. There’s no way I can go any further without spoiling things, but I’ll just say that it makes you look at all three “Men in Black” movies from a different perspective. The ending is well conceived and even though there were a few questions that immediately came to mind, it really worked for me.

“Men in Black 3” most certainly isn’t a great movie but it’s definitely an upgrade over the almost unwatchable second film. Then again, that’s not really saying a much. MiB3 starts off strong and has a nice ending but it’s what’s in between that keeps it from being as good as it could be. Brolin is the highlight and he’s a lot of fun to watch. There are also some other pretty good performances. As I mentioned, the visuals are high quality, exactly what you would expect. But none of these pluses can outweigh the minuses. There’s just not enough substance or humor to make this anything more than an okay movie.