User reviews

Maybe the most refreshing thing about Che, both parts, is that its director, Steven Soderbergh, didn't know anything about Ernesto "Che" Guevara before taking on the project. This is like a good few in the audience, like yours truly. I didn't know much at all about Che except that he was involved with communist uprisings and revolutions, was buddy-buddy with Castro, and died in execution-style as a guerrilla (that, and his image appears on t-shirts everywhere). What Soderbergh provides for an audience that will go to see it for what he will do with the project- and what Benicio Del-Toro does with the character- is that it's a history lesson made vibrant and urgent and passionate and, according to the director in interviews and Q & A's, honest portrayal of events.

If this means that we may not get exactly a fully rounded portrait of its titular protagonist/hero, then that's probably the only real liability that the picture has. Maybe, perhaps, rightfully so; Che wasn't a guy, at least in his prime revolutionary years, to be one that had much warmth or moments of doubt (and if he had them, they were behind closed doors and out of any record of diaries). So what we get in Part 1, the conventional "Rise" of the character in the story, is the tale of how to do a revolution right- or rather, how to take over a government by military force, and it's Che as a man who pretty quickly becomes a natural leader, a stern taskmaster and also someone who "loves" as a revolutionary must, Che says.

It's gripping film-making nevertheless, with Soderbergh commanding the narrative wonderfully between a color-filmed part-digital-part-35mm Red-camera on the 1957-1959 events in Cuba and the 1964 trip to the UN in New York filmed in grainy black and white. What we get is part documentary and part bio-pic, words straight from the guerrilla's mouth, as it were, and the events that led up to the take-over (which serves as the climax of the picture) in Santa Clara, Cuba. Some of the elements, as noted, are conventional of just a war picture: we get the young kids (16 and 14) who will do anything to fight with Guevara and his group; we get the supposed love interest, only (thankfully) muted with only one scene with small talk; and we get the moments of enthusiasm, humor, camaraderie, and unlikely bravery in the heat of battle.

But most importantly we see Benicio del-Toro take command of this role like he does seemingly often but rarely with such force. In fact, he probably elevates this Che past some possible pit-falls (this project was actually his baby, as he serves as co-producer and developed the project for years), and makes him as human as he can be, using Che's health-tic (asthma) to its fullest, and reveling in going for broke as far as gusto and revelation go. For all of Soderbergh's command of the film-making style- most of all, for me, during the climactic battle where we get to see him awesomely direct a battle sequence- del-Toro, for any scene he's in, steals the show. If for nothing else, whatever your political stance or thoughts on Che, he's worth the admission. 8.5/10

Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.

If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.

The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is The Argentine, depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is Guerrilla, and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.

This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.

It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one.

Che Part One is an interesting and enjoyable film about the Cuban revolution, that focuses on the infamous Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. The story follows Che from his first meeting with Castro, to the climactic battle in Santa Clara, where Batista's army makes its last stand against the revolutionaries.

This battle scene is filmed guerrilla warfare style in an urban environment, with short bursts of action followed by silence as soldiers move into newer/better positions. It all feels very tense and realistic, which makes a nice change to the shaky cam explosion fests that we're used to. This style works well throughout the rest of the film but swaps the city for the jungle.

The flash forward scenes where Che is interviewed and later addresses the United Nations, help to give the story, and Che, more depth and background, whilst giving us insights into his personality and ideology. Along with the battles, these scenes also help to break up the slower parts of the film.

Cinematography in the film is good and occasionally great, with some stunning shots of the Cuban landscape. The black and white scenes are also well shot, without feeling out of place.

On another positive note, Benicio Del Toro does an excellent job portraying Che. He is understated and believable as the man who wanted to change people's lives, focused on doing what he thought was right.

Unfortunately though, I had trouble caring about or even remembering most of the other characters, as dialogue between them isn't particular memorable. Sometimes you almost feel like you're watching a documentary that's trying to teach rather than entertain and this can start to wear, especially when you're reading subtitles. Che may also be shown in a better light than some would like, although honestly I feel the film is fairly accurate in its portrayal of the man and the history.

I'd definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in Che or the events in Cuba. Even if at times things do get a little slow, it's still a rewarding and informative experience.

When it comes to biopics, there are usually two discernibly differentiated forms; the film, and the documentary. Of course, when I use the word documentary, I don't mean it literally, but rather, as a means to say that the approach its director takes it similar to those used by directors of documentaries. Che, which comes in the shadow of a recent but very different cousin W., is such a movie that exists not to entertain or provide the viewer with any personal gratification outside of historical and biographical information on its central figure and topic. Where Oliver Stone decided to take a much more light-hearted, human paintbrush to his canvas, Steven Soderbergh here uses stern, almost completely serious shades, creating an informative and compelling account of a man that became a living icon in our modern culture. So like most of those that have come before it, Che is a movie that is best appreciated under no pretence; this is a history lesson disguised as film, and while it does tell a good story, those looking for entertainment best look away.

Of course, the icon that I refer to is quite obviously Cuban revolutionist Ernesto 'Che' Guevara here played by Benicio Del Toro, a figure now embellished upon the memories of those with slightest interest in political history. If not, then you probably have his face on a t-shirt somewhere and you didn't know. Yet it doesn't matter how or why you know of Guevara before you view Che because Peter Buchman does a fine job of introducing you to him here. Plus, coupled with a performance that never begs for attention but instead simply plays the man he's supposed to be portraying with no overt padding, Del Toro goes a long way to giving Che the right amount of conviction that is needed to keep thing interesting and dynamic. Make no mistake, this is no dramatization of the man's life, so Del Toro never piles on the melodrama or anything to that degree to win over the audience, and this is reflected not only through the movie's ensemble of performances, but through the entire production itself.

Had the feature remained its original singular, five hour form however, a different opinion may have been garnered, but as it stands, the movie does well on its own merit. Part One, which details the initial struggle of the revolution of Cuba, is less about Guevara and more about his cause under the leadership of Fidel Castro. Granted, focus is shifted every now and again to set up part two's inevitable centralization upon Che himself, but for the most part, Part One remains more as a wide-angled view on the movement in which Guevara was part of. This shift in focus does well to once again distance the movie away from mere speculative entertainment and more towards the form of an educational informant. Yes, there are scenes that drag on and on, and generally some of these seem superfluous and dubious to the overall arc of the production, but for the most part, the script and direction remains coherent in its willingness to merely document rather than emote.

As a whole, Che's first half is an unassuming picture. At first glance, it isn't anything remotely special, and probably won't provide viewers with any degree of resonance if they are not interested in the man and his people's struggle beforehand, yet the same can be said for a number of similar features. Instead, I can only recommend this to those who are interested in the revolution and don't mind slow paced, attention-demanding material that does entertain from time to time, but only as a natural result of its historical importance. Again, those looking for a character piece similar to Stone's portrayal of George W. Bush last year would be wise to reevaluate their will to see Che; although titled after the man himself, and a biopic on a purely ostensible level, Che is more about his fight than the man himself. There are no real moments of personal insight here, no cathartic revelations or studies of psyche. No, instead the movie tells the facts as they were, straight from the horses mouth, and while they can sometimes work against the common desires of cinema goers' need for personal fulfillment, if digested objectively, can provide a strongly engaging, interesting and informative piece of historically significant art.

• A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

Che: Part One felt very complete and fulfilling. I found myself looking at Ernesto "Che" Guevara as a very well rounded person. Not as an ideological self fulfilling man but as an articulate man with thought out rational decisions as well as a man with many useful talents.

The acting of the cast all around was very good but Benicio Del Toro took the movie by storm but he did this in a very subtle way. His performance displayed how Che's spirit was able to superseded the hardships faced in the Cuban Revolution. It did not display any brutality or recklessness but a devotion to a cause. Del Toro's perforations was that worthy of an Oscar nomination but I don't think Che Guervara cared to much about awards.

The directing by Steven Soderbergh was visually stunning at times with much of the scenes shot in the forest. What kept the movie upbeat though were the scenes of Che in New York giving interviews and addressing the U.N. It added an extra layer to the film allowing you to see another side of Che. The side in which he shows his political and speaking abilities. The writing was very good with the dialog always keeping you engrossed. The music, though not much of it, was very good and stayed within rhythm of the rest of the film.

Overall the film succeeds in showing Che as a well rounded man never developing into oversimplified or unnecessarily complex portrayal of a man. The movie was very accurate and refused to take on a role of being inspiring or Hollywoodish which I enjoyed. The only problem with the film I had was that it seems to have a little too much of a feel of a war film rather than a biopic. Still I highly recommend this film.

He was a revolutionary fighter, a doctor, a social philosopher and a martyr who turned to armed warfare as a 'necessary' means of stamping out the foreign complexities, poverty and injustice that had bled South America for centuries. He was a Marxist, a writer, a guerrilla and a diplomat who rose to prominence as a leader of Fidel Castro's radical '26th of July Movement': a left wing political party that launched an armed invasion of Cuba rapt on toppling U.S backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. This historical revolt: the focal point of director Steven Soderbergh's enduring, coarse and superbly crafted part one of two biopic. A sometimes bitty, sometimes brilliant hand-held epic that succeeds in its failure to fall into the consumer culture camp that's exploited Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's image now for so long.

Steven Soderbergh refrains, then, from counteracting the magnitude of Che: Part One's dense political platform by ramping up the fireworks. This wont appeal to mainstream viewers. This is not a Cuban Braveheart. This is not some twisted Scarface prequel. There will be no post-movie pop-art. Che: Part One is an intelligent and vital take on the man behind the myth not a balls-to-the-wall action spectacle blaring with blood, bullets and CGI. It's a thorough and naturalistic treatise on iconic human drive and endeavour that infrequently shuttles between monochrome and Technicolor, between Che Guevara's 1964 delegation at the UN headquarters and time spent trudging through the Cuban jungle.

If your understanding of certain political ideals and movements are, at best, hazy- then it's best to steer clear of this one. You're likely are likely to find the first serving of Soderbergh's four-and-a-half-hour, two part political epic a little confusing. This ain't no Hollywood funded, slick and stylish, over-dramatic chronicle concerned with entertainment or income. This isn't 'Defiance' or 'Valkrye'. This is a well-researched, claustrophobic and paced political drama (shot in Spanish) where spurts of action, violence and humour are few and far between. Imagine Oliver Stone's 'Salvador' by the way of Terrance Mallick's 'The Thin Red Line': fragmented, anti-mainstream and very heavy-going.

The bravura Benicio Del Toro stars as Che and is quite excellent. He delivers a focused and unwavering performance worthy of a thousand accolades: his finest since '21 Grams'. The fact that Del Toro is fluent in Spanish also helps, as does a rallying and unknown supporting cast that work well as a low-key ensemble. It's all about Del Toro, though. His insurgent, intense and convincing Che is one marred by crippling bouts of asthma yet defined by a burning desire to educate and reform- to put his litigious beliefs into action and unite Latin America.

With Che: Part One, the diligent Steven Soderbergh has found his blend of realism and narrative, documentary and drama. As an avid Che fan and reader of his books and biographies, there is little doubt in my mind that this monumental work will stand as the first piece in the definitive two part screen portrait of one the twentieth century's most iconic, yet largely uncharted, political figures.

Final Verdict: While lesser films wallow in the limelight, Che: Part One stirs understated in the shadows seemingly content with the fact that it wont appeal to all, or many. Steven Soderbergh has crafted a very loyal and well-made biopic. One that demythologises, one that educates, one that excels and ensues Walter Salle's soul-searching Che preface: The Motorcycle Diaries.

What on earth was director Steven Soderbergh thinking when he decided to tackle the story of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, the Argentinian born doctor and revolutionary who joined Fidel Castro's campaign to take Cuba back from the American backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista? What motivated the director of Oceans Eleven,Twelve and Thirteen… to make this amazing 4½ hour biopic. Why Che Guevara, and why now? How did he even manage to get the funding for a film about a communist revolutionary in the first place? What was the pitch? Not that there is anything wrong with the film. Far from it. Soderberg tells Guevara's story with loving attention to detail, and without resorting to sentimentality or melodrama.

This is not the first time Che's story has been turned into a movie. The 2004 film, The Motorcycle Diaries, examines the formation of Guevara's early politicization, and … But Soderberg's film (with Benicio Del Toro in the lead role as Che Guevara), is the first to try and tell the whole story of Guevara's involvement in the Cuban revolution, and his subsequent attempt to spread the revolution to Boliva, where he was eventually caught and killed in October 1967.

Part 1, deals with the fight against Batista. The long hard slog of waging a guerrilla campaign is covered in great detail as a boatload of 82 revolutionaries head for Cuba during November 1956, and the struggle to win Cuba back for the Cuban people begins.

The first film draws extensively on the Guevara's own writings, especially his memoir "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War". The months and years of protracted guerrilla warfare are inter-cut with beautifully recreated scenes showing Che addressing the United Nations in 1964, and conducting numerous interviews with a range of media outlets.

Soderberg uses these scenes to explain some of the history and 'back story' to the Cuban revolution, and to give the audience some insight into Che Guevara – the man and revolutionary. Part 1 of Che ends in 1959 as Batista flies into exile in the United States, and the revolutionaries under the leadership of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are about to enter Havana.

Drawing on Guevara's 'Bolivian Diary', Part 2 of Che takes up the story as Che, going under the pseudonym of 'Ramon', lands in Boliva in 1965, and begins trying to recruit local guerrilla's with the intention of overthrowing the ruling government.

Here, his campaign to recruit local peasant farmers fails, and before he and his small band of revolutionaries are able to launch any sort of major anti government attack, they are hunted down and killed with the help of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Che Guevara was wounded and captured on or about October 9, 1967. It is a matter of record that he was alive at the time of his capture, and that he was subsequently shot and killed to ensure he would no longer be able to foment revolution either in Boliva or elsewhere in Latin America. How ironic then that his execution has sparked a 'cult of the revolutionary' that has not diminished over the intervening 40 plus years since his death.

Of course, apart from the Oceans… series of films, Soderberg has shown he is socially aware by also directing Erin Brockovich, Traffic (again with Del Toro), and The Good German, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that he decided to tackle the story of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.

Don't be fooled by the inclusion of other A-list cast members (Julia Ormond, Matt Damon, Franka Potente, and Lou Diamond Phillips) in Che. All of these actors have minor roles, and small support parts. In fact Matt Damon is on screen for less than two minutes! I can only assume that Soderberg needed some additional well known actors to help secure finance and distribution for the film.

However, this is without a doubt Benicio Del Toros' film. His performance is a revelation. He inhabits the role of Guevara so well, that there are times when I wasn't sure if the historical footage – recreated in black and white – didn't have the real Che Guevara in them.

According to the program notes, Soderberg is working an a middle part to Che's story. This film will apparently cover Guevara's experiences in Africa. If this is the case, then this trilogy will indeed constitute Steven Soderberg's masterpiece. I can think of no other biopic to rival it, and the finished series should help to keep the legend of 'Che' Guevara alive for at least another 40 years.

If I was to describe this film as a bunch of men marching across Cuba, with a bit of a fight at the end, you may wonder if I have missed the point.

Well, this is the film. We are supposed to understand what the revolution will become, but nothing in the film hints at this. The director is guilty of allowing the viewer, who is doubtless well versed in the history, to fill in much of what is unsaid. This began to fail a bit when the factional infighting was not explained. We can't quite see what the army are doing. Are they confused, poorly led or indifferent? Che marches with a growing band of men, reading, smoking and spouting revolutionary wisdom in a fairly offhand manner. Fidel smokes more, and has the more prominent beard.

I wonder whether some of the Che character was forced on the film by The Motorcycle Diaries - which was a very spirited film. I notice that Che's asthma seemed to stop after the first 20 mins or so.

Similarly to the recent Baader Meinhof Komplex, we are given a fairly colourless picture of the historical events, but a solid framework to work with. Little to love, little to think about. But I wanted more, which we will get in part 2.

Nothing quite like getting your teeth into an epic is there? Sitting back and letting yourself get immersed into a struggle, a journey, in this case the Cuban revolution that has become such a cause celebre for many since the 1950s. By the time I left the cinema I sadly felt as though the epic had been squashed down into an easily swallowed period piece with all the epic grandeur of a Dan Brown novel. The problem with Che Part One is that it doesn't say anything particularly interesting or contain any memorable moments. There is lots and lots of shooting which is actually fairly sanitised (this is certainly no Saving Private Ryan), there is some mistreatment of people who are then avenged and there are lots of shots of Benicio del Toro looking quite idealistic and cool.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing specifically wrong with this film. It portrays a fairly accurate (if, as I said, sanitised) picture of the March on Santa Clara and the victory of Castro's rebels. However much in the same way as the kind of perpetually running museum film that you can dip in and out of it is largely uninspiring and leaves you feeling quite detached. The problem is not the direction or the acting which does manage to transport you into the heart of a Civil War ravaged Cuba. It is the fact that we learn next to nothing about Cuba, Che himself or the goals of the revolutionaries. We learn nothing of why the Batista regime was so bad that people wanted to overthrow it. Which means that this simply stands alone as a war film where there are lots of explosions, lots of running around and some scenes of people celebrating in the streets. While I understand from reports that Che Part Two is rather different I think that nevertheless the slight blandness of Che Part One means that, though it looks good, it does feel like a rather wasted opportunity.

This struck me as a documentary or, more fairly as a personal yet direct meditation on the own words of a man, embedded in context, which may also be a definition for documentary I was deeply impressed by the honesty of this film. I understood where Soderbergh, the artist, was, as i felt the space he left for me to think. How he uses Che's own expression of the part of his life depicted in the film, with the least possible manipulation (editing the book is already manipulating) and still, it's up to the viewer to place his own opinions over what he saw - more or less distanced according to where we come from and where and how long we lived. Of course this is made considering that who goes to the film has a previous knowledge of what context and moment, and what character he is about to watch.

I'll put this film together with Medem's 'La pelota vasca' (an assumed documentary) for they both show an extreme sensitivity working with such delicate themes as like they choose to work. Both originated some contesting, More with Medem's because the director was more rooted in the problem that was shown, and because the story is far from being closed, but to me they were both opened films which, as any contemporary film should be, leave a lot of the thinking to the public, and work as brain starter for discussion.

The narrative structure is effective, the artwork and editing are of great competence. Che in the woods of Sierra Maestra, on the verge taking the power in Cuba inter cut with his visit to the USA, in 1964. This second line is shot in black and white, the other has beautiful colors. The absence of music was a mildly risky choice i appreciated. The rest, you can think of it yourself. I thought Del Toro was very good, internally concentrated, resisted totally to being what we expected Che to be, and that's something, to be able to interpret a character with such an charismatic aura behind him, which we can still feel when his own words are spoken. From this film on, i admire Del Toro; before this i didn't look at him as i do now. I'll review his previews performances, i have to check if i didn't notice how good he is. Quite on the contrary, Bichir, as Fidel, was a total disaster, frankly one of the worst performances i've ever seen. How could he think Fidel was all about imitating a voice, some gestures, and handling a cigar. What a mess.

Of course this man's story is controversial, which means one can make radically opposed opinions out of the same known and accepted facts. The fair amount of arguments i've had since i saw it with someone who saw it with me prove me right here. I think Guevara was a lucid man, who read perfectly well the mechanics of the world of oppression where he stood. He chose to stand there and live like them, though he wasn't like them, and that's worth admiration. The ideas he made of the injustice he saw was a product of a genuine mind. But though the diagnosis was right, the whole process of making it in practical terms was a mess, to my eyes. He was at the root of a regime, inserted in a bigger regime, that grew on arrogance, on hypocrisies, and at a certain point became at least so unfair to the same oppressed people as those oppressed had before. And that's because, though wanting to do different, this revolution used the same weapons of strenght and physical superiority others had used. And that killed the whole idea. And Guevara was there, with it, being oppressive when he thought he was being better, out of, i think, ingenuity. What i say is, read the man, his observations are probably equally (or even more) correct today as they were when he made them, but don't follow his steps, i wouldn't, not knowing what i know today.

Also, notice how Che, the icon, grew to incredible proportions, 3 reasons i give it:

-He died young, and fighting for ideals, at least shooting for ideas;

-He was picked up by the very capitalism he rejected and was sold like an icon the population (mainly youth) desperate to get out of the contradictions in this regime, check the contradiction of this;

-He had an image standing for him, literally an image, the photograph Korda took. It's amazing, and it's probably an unique case, how a single image can move millions, how the right moment, with the right publicity can be so powerful. If you think about that, among the capitalists who sell tshirts and the liberals who believe Guevara, this is image is the center of the most successful publicity campaign ever. Once more, i admire Soderbergh's intelligence to leave that image out of this film. It's more than avoiding a cliché. It's avoiding the viewers to go recall clichés they've made (me included) over that image.

My opinion: 4/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

This first part of Ernesto Guevara biopic can be watched on its own. In fact, having watched also the second part, I must confess I had rather stopped with the first installment.

Ernesto Guevara led a very intense and adventurous life. There is an excellent film about his formative years (The motorcycle diaries) which details how Guevara got to know about the miseries of the South American continent and decided to do something to re-dress the injustice.

In this movie we lack any information about the idealistic background that moved Guevara. The style is very documentary-like and detached. In fact, even too detached. The main part of film is in colour, showing Guevara reaching Cuba in 1956 with Fidel Castro and the other revolutionaries and fighting their way to Havana. Also in colour is a short flashback in Mexico, with Guevara and Castro meeting the first time.

Interspersed in the movie are grainy, black & white scenes about Guevara 1964 trip to the UN. These scenes are very annoying for those who watch the film in the original version (in Spanish), and understand both English and Spanish. Guevara is interviewed in English, all questions are translated in English and he answers in Spanish, making the whole process unbearably dull.

Sadly, also the long guerrilla part of the movie is equally unexciting. Obviously, even guerrilla fighters must have some dull moments in their life, but here it looks like they have nothing else. Given the documentary-style, we are shown countless scenes of the long march through the island, the most (and only) dramatic moment being the taking of Santa Clara.

Considering the events depicted the major political overturning and the years of fighting spent by Guevara and his companions, the result is sorely lacking drama and tension. Benicio Del Toro does a good job, playing the part without any fanatic idealism, but rather with a human, melancholic side. Unfortunately he is not enough to make the movie raise from fake documentary into compelling biopic Disappointing.

P.S. big mistake morphing what is perhaps the most famous photo of Guevara into a quasi-resemblance with Del Toro...

So this is what I know. One can trust a director if one likes his/her work, and this trust can be even augmented if the director produces his own work, like the case of Steven Soderbergh with "Che". I like this Soderbergh because he has control over his work, but it's not the only reason. Before, in "Traffic", he showed with his hand-held camera that he knew exactly what he was doing; and that he could do it in several ways (the black and white in "The Good German", to put just an example) and with several genres.

I like Soberbergh because he has style, a defined style; and because he shoots like few directors. In this first part of his "Che", he combines all the forms and styles he has tried when shooting and the result is undoubtedly his most ambitious project, but is it his best? That's a very difficult question that can be treated from different angles and that I'm going to answer with a 'no'.

The movie is Soderbergh's most ambitious work from minute one, throwing in a lot of dates and different places and pictures of newspapers that attempt a quick historical reconstruction. We see Che speaking, in black and white, with people we can't instantly distinguish and Soderbergh's camera wanders through his knee until he finds an icon: Che's cigar. Soon, Guevara is answering questions that have no particular nature but start becoming more precise to define the structure of the film; a confusing ride back and forth in time that revolves around Che but includes a lot of people and a lot of places.

The script, written by Peter Buchman and based on some memoirs of Che himself, clearly seems to be following a faithful reconstruction of the time spent by Che with the Guerilla and the towns he and the army conquered, his relationship with Fidel, the philosophy of life and work he had, his idea of revolution…Yes, it's too many people, too many places, too many things; I told you it was ambitious and it's not the most entertaining ride for a viewer.

"Che, El Argentino" is a good movie because it succeeds in apparently everything it attempts to do, and it's obvious it wasn't a little deal. However, the reason of the word 'apparently' is because I found it difficult to find out exactly what Soderbergh was trying to do. I know and can guess some things: he shot in many places and through different periods of time, therefore his cinematography has merit and his editor Pablo Zumárraga has even more; he shot more action sequences than in any of his previous films and he managed to transmit the crudeness and lack of 'spectacularity' of the confrontations of the time, supported by a precise score by Alberto Iglesias; he explored, visually, his main character from almost every angle anyone could think of and this denotes a firm collaboration with the actors who plays it. In fact, the scenes in black and white, where we can easily see that the only ones working where Del Toro and Soderbergh.

It has to be said: Benicio Del Toro's performance is brilliant, but not entirely because of what you see on screen. Even when his moves and postures express the work of someone who has intensely studied a historical figure and traveled for his purpose and God knows what else, his collaboration with Soderbergh is also crucial. The answers he gives throughout the film and define the structure of it, for example, are clearly recorded in post-production; and even when they help the viewer understand, they loose naturalness. Edition must have helped his work a lot; a work that wins in those moments when his Che is quiet, peaceful. There we understand him better and believe him, but then there are moments when he irradiates pure rage and is so natural and convincing that we wonder where he had kept those emotions the whole time.

So as you see, it's a brilliant work, of contradiction. One could easily judge the performance as bad, because he doesn't sound Argentinean or because he doesn't sound the same in every scene; but that wouldn't be fair, even more if you know the great actor Del Toro is.

Everything I've written takes me back to one question, or two a group of questions lead by: "what was Soderbergh's attempt?". Doing a movie about Che Guevara, an emblematic 'icon' (as the movie mentions in one point) everyone carries around in bags and collars and sometimes can't answer why they're carrying his photographs. Did Soderbergh want to show us who Che was? The real Che? Is it enough with a book written by Che himself to understand his message? And how should he put it on screen? Is this a biopic? A historic movie?

The way I see it, it's all too general. Soderbergh made sure he showed the history and both of Che's sides, the one everyone knows as good and the one that's always referred as bad. It's a good decision, as if Soderbergh wouldn't want to discuss this aspect of his film; as if he wouldn't want to fight anyone. Then why doing the film? Maybe my conclusions are wrong and the second part will tell me something else, but that last question isn't worth asking because "Che" is a good movie; and that's enough.

Che is sometimes, almost like life itself, a bit of a mess. It meanders. In and around the time of the Cuban revolution – and so fittingly that the film is being released 50 years on – but jumps back and forth to give us black and white footage of Che Guevara addressing the United Nations. Or meeting McCarthy in New York. And then through lush tropical terrain, fighting to overthrow the regime in power until 1959.

Says director Steven Soderbergh, "I was drawn to Che as a subject for a movie (or two) not only because his life reads like an adventure story, but because I am fascinated by the technical challenges that go along with implementing any large-scale political idea. I wanted to detail the mental and physical demands these two campaigns required, and illustrate the process by which a man born with an unshakable will discovers his own ability to inspire and lead others." With that brief, there are so many different films that could have been made. This is one of them. And rather a good one. Yet probably not the one you will expect.

There is plenty of close-up fighting. But somehow we feel quite removed from it. What Soderbergh portrays is not the action hero. Nor the colourful historical drama. Neither is Benicio Del Toro's portrait one painted in close-ups and interiorisation. Instead, we have the vision. Depicted in a way consistent with the man's outlook – a team-player as well as a guerrilla and idealist. A doctor and a soldier who aroused strong loyalty. "I was trying to find the scenes that would happen before or after the scene you would typically see in a movie like this," says Soderbergh. The result is casual, desultory. We get the feeling of what it may have been like to be around such a man. 'Political' is simply the mechanism, the "procedural of guerrilla warfare." Soderberg is agnostic about Guevara and indifferent to the rabid hatred of people who have not even seen the film.

Meticulously researched over many years, Che is a considerable achievement in historical accuracy. And yet here is the first controversy. Wouldn't a balanced portrait of such an almost mythologized figure include more of his faults as well as his virtues? I found myself struggling with this. A director who was capable of describing such a multiplicity of viewpoints (in his earlier film, Traffic) or bringing a real character to life on screen with emotional force (as in Erin Brockovich) was giving me something rather bland and unquestioning (Oliver Stone's insipid Comandante was already coming to mind). Che Guevara was lionised by the liberal left from Sartre to Nelson Mandela, and is still a hero to many of the world's youth. But he is also a hated figure by the anti-Castro Miami Cubans, not least for the bloody executions that followed his socialist revolution (a period conveniently ignored in the movie.) I had berated Charlize Theron for her right-leaning documentary, East of Havana , for its mis-statement of facts. But isn't Soderbergh's film, with seemingly the opposite political bent, guilty of omission? "There is no amount of accumulated barbarity that would have satisfied the people who hate him," says the director when confronted with this. Although this will not appease the fervent anti-Castro-ists, it does give some justification to the filmmaker's choices.

Guevara is not just a political-historical figure. Based on the famous photo by Korda, his image continues to emblazon t-shirts and memorabilia worldwide. For many youngsters, it is simply an anti-authority figure. In parts of South America that I have visited, it symbolises opposition to U.S. economic occupation. In other words, a hero. The inspiration (rightly or wrongly) is of someone who put moral ideals above his own material welfare. Not a bad image for a youngster to aim at perhaps. When we analyse the real person (which most people don't), we could perhaps ask if noble ideals are as noble when they don't always have noble results.

Soderbergh has had to condense enough material for a dozen films. The romantic youth so ably portrayed in Motorcycle Diaries left the viewing public deprived of any representation of the most famous and important period of Che Guevara's life. Before we passively sit down to a Spielberg-sized over-interpretation for bums on seats at the box-office, perhaps we should hail Soderbergh for this calm, relatively unspectacular and unemotional account. It is not a political film. But it perhaps approaches as close to documentary as biopic is capable of. Benicio Del Toro becomes Che Guevara with great acumen. Not flamboyantly. Not with great theatrics or displays of emotion. Sincere and almost reverent, he blends seamlessly with quasi-documentary footage. Unless you heard the real Che Guevara speak at the United Nations, this is probably the next best thing.

On the other hand, if your reply is, "United what?" and you would prefer a well-made Hollywood romp, please leave Che to us sad little people that inhabit art-house cinemas . . .

I waited a long time and was really looking forward to seeing Che. Unfortunately, I found most of Part One disappointing; the first hour and a half is boring and hard to follow. The main problem is that it keeps skipping back and forth from past to future, rather than just telling a cohesive story. Just when the guerrilla warfare stuff starts to get interesting, the film shifts to Che at the United Nations or Che being interviewed, or worse, irritating voice over of the interview WHILE the action scene is taking place. And it also keeps shifting from color to black and white. All of that is way too artsy fartsy for a biography of a revolutionary. Also, the scenes are too short. There must be a million scenes in this movie. They say a couple of words and then we are somewhere else and something else is happening. It's almost like the scenes are flash cards that we are suppose to keep up with, but since those of us who don't speak Spanish have to concentrate on the subtitles as well, there is simply too much going on too rapidly to grasp the entire picture. It's exhausting and unfulfilling. That kind of direction bugs me when Oliver Stone does it and it also bugs me here. It makes the movie feel like a documentary, but there are already some fine documentaries out there about Che. I was expected an engrossing war movie instead. I couldn't relate to Benicio Del-Toro's portrayal of Che because he's never on camera more than about thirty seconds at a time. He says something or does something and then we are sent somewhere else where he's saying and doing something else. We never get the chance to meet the man that way. And boy do they bleed the close up shots of him sucking on a cigar for all they're worth. There isn't much emotion expressed by any of the characters; I would think, living out there in the jungle with bullets constantly whizzing by, emotions would flare like fireworks. Instead everything is spoken dead pan like a puppet show, which is also exhausting to watch. Finally, during the last twenty or so minutes, the jumping around stops and the film concentrates on one battle for a while, picking up the pace. I think you will enjoy this movie a lot more if you understand the Spanish because then you won't have to work so hard to keep up with what's happening.

CHE: PART ONE is an enjoyable history lesson detailing the rise and rise of Argentinian revolutionary Che Guevara, following his early years as he hooks up with brothers Raul and Fidel Castro and sets about engaging in a guerrilla warfare in Cuba. The direction by Steven Soderbergh is understated, the director preferring to have this feel almost like a documentary, following the rebels on their path to success.

The raw, cinema verite style is this story's strongest asset, that and the fact that Benedicio del Toro feels like he was born to play the role. Despite the lengthy running time, the story holds the attention, and the frequent battle scenes are very well handled and believable. The only part I didn't like was the constant cutting away to dull, black and white scenes of exposition with Guevara being interviewed in later years; they should have let the straightforward storytelling speak for itself.

In terms of a (loose) description, part one of this two part series covers Ernesto Che Guevara's travels, alongside Fidel Castro, from Mexico to Cuba and his rise, organizing and leading his fighters, finally culminating in Castro's seizure of power in Cuba from Fulgencio Batista. The second film, rather different in tone and spirit from its companion, focuses primarily on his efforts in Bolivia, tracking his gradual downfall Little of Guevara's personal life aside from his activism is detailed, which is both a little surprising and somewhat vexing, especially when one considers the combined duration of both films is well over four hours. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with a filmed biography limiting itself to just one or two particular aspects of its subject's diverse life; such an approach can ensure better focus on the material, as opposed to risking the potential the audience may become lost in a rambling, disjointed account in which too few events in the subjects life are explored with adequate depth and clarity.

The pair of films, overall, are most memorable for their sequences of Guevara's guerrilla army training and battling in the jungles and waters of Cuba and Bolivia and especially for the climactic battles near the end of each film. They may each be overlong and not chart as much territory as they perhaps should. Some may wish they would delve further into the obscure intimacies of his life, especially for the benefit of those already familiar with his activism. Others may feel the film does not question his militant means often or strongly enough. No, the films are not perfect, but lesser movies than these have been well received and, as such, these two are worth a look.

Why does Hollywood make movies about racist mass murderers and elevate them to hero status? The real Ernesto Guevara was a monster. This movie is an affront to humanity.