jOBS, the biopic of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs — whose ruthlessness and design-savvy created his celebrity — debuted at the Sundance Film Festival this weekend, and the reviews are mixed.

The biopic stars Ashton Kutcher as Jobs and Josh Gad as Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. It will be released to the public on April 19, though you can watch a minute-long teaser now.

Reviewers are going back and forth on the actors’ portrayals versus the historical accuracy of the movie. Kutcher got everyone talking about his physical likeness to Jobs after the movie team released a photo of Kutcher’s Jobs sitting next to a “THINK” post. According to reviews, he pulls off Jobs well, capturing his mannerisms and tonality in the movie itself.

But while the actors might make you believe, Jobs-fans may call the movie out for not sticking to Apple canon.

Another point raised: It seems the movie heralds Jobs for his work but might over-exaggerate how meaningful certain moments were — such as when he unveiled the iPod — to accent his significance.

Let’s take a look at the reviews:

The Next Web on the accuracy of Kutcher’s portrayal:

“Kutcher’s Jobs has the hunched, rolling gait of the man, and the kinetic nature of his hands. His flat, piercing stare and clipped delivery works almost perfectly throughout. Even if you’ve spent an enormous amount of time listening to or watching Jobs, you’ll be impressed with his overall performance. There were a few moments where he dropped out of cadence in his speech and such, but the impression that I got on the whole is that he got it right.

I know that his performance as Jobs will get a lot of attention, especially as there are many alive who still have their memories of him fresh in mind. But it’s a fantastic, if not wholly factually accurate, performance by Kutcher.”

CNET on how jOBS doesn’t show enough Steve Jobs grit:

“Only Gad, as Wozniak, gets a scene standing up to the great man — as Woz quits Apple, he criticizes Jobs for losing his humanity amid a single-minded pursuit of making great products. It’s something even Jobs’ staunchest admirers have to wrestle with, and the film could have used more of that.

Others will write of the things “jOBS” omits, gets wrong, or simply avoids. My primary disappointment was in how shallow the film felt, given the extensive historical record. In the early days Jobs’ co-workers had to wrestle with a man who smelled bad, who cried often, who yelled constantly, who missed deadlines, who overspent his budget by millions. … There is great drama to be found in all that, but it is not to be found in the saccharine ‘jOBS.’”

The Verge on jOBS’ set and costumes success:

“The production and costume design are astounding, and it’s not just Kutcher wearing nearly every iconic Jobs outfit (the suspenders, the bowtie, the turtleneck, etc) throughout the film. The filmmakers were able to use Jobs’s childhood home — the legendary “garage” where Apple started — and it really sells the first third of the movie to see it around the iconic location. The offices and fashion play to each era — big glasses, bigger hair, slacks worn high — even if it isn’t necessarily what the individual actually wore in real life. Woz may never have worn that tie, but someone in the 70s did.

The movie is littered with small details of lore that should make Apple fanatics happy.”

Hollywood Reporter on the omission of important details:

“By accentuating the sweet spot that combines the Apple origin story with the drama inherent in Jobs’ struggles to grow and maintain control of his company, Whiteley and Stern [screenwriter and director respectively] get the best return on investment — but at the expense of some important details, including his initial introduction to Wozniak and any specifics about Woz’s personal history. As the two are developing the first Apple computers, the omission of discussion about the operating-system software needed to run the machines also is puzzling.”

Want a taste of the Sundance Film Festival without the cold, crowds, and travel? Sundance is offering a selection of 12 short films on YouTube via its Screen Room channel.

While it’s nice for film fans who won’t be able to make it to the festival, it’s also something that Sundance has been doing for the past two years. Back in 2010, Sundance and YouTube also experimented with offering full films from the festival for rent — with disappointing results.

I’m all for filmmakers exploring new avenues of digital distribution, but it’s a shame that Sundance is simply repeating what it’s done for the past few years. By offering their shorts online, directors are also giving up any hope for Oscar consideration as well. As the LA Times notes, any short that appears online, on TV, or on video before winning a festival prize, or opening in a paid screening at an L.A. theater, gets excluded from the Oscars.

For short film directors, the benefits of opening their work up to a larger online audience likely outweighs awards consideration. There’s also a better chance you’ll actually be able to view these shorts on your TV this year, with YouTube-capable TVs and devices more readily available.

Below, check out descriptions from a few of the shorts being featured (via Slashfilm):

THE APOCALYPSE (dir. Andrew Zuchero): Four uninspired friends try to come up with a terrific idea for how to spend their Saturday afternoon.

ROKEN NIGHT (dir. Guillermo Arriaga): A young woman and her four-year-old daughter drive across desolated hills. Everything looks fine and they seem to enjoy the ride, until an accident sends them into the nightmare of darkness.

CATNIP: EGRESS TO OBLIVION? (dir. Jason Willis): Catnip is all the rage with today’s modern feline, but do we really understand it? This film frankly discusses the facts about this controversial substance.

THE EVENT (dir. Julia Pott): Love and a severed foot at the end of the world.

WHEN THE ZOMBIES COME (dir. Jon Hurst): At a remote hardware store, fans of the walking dead have turned their love of zombies into an obsession, warping the way they see the store and its customers.