A lot of the problem many people have with this movie is that they seem to think that the story should have been more entertaining (ignoring it is based on a true story) or ranting against a film that glorifies Che (which it really doesn't). This film is very close to Jon Anderson's definitive bio on Che and gets the story right. Soderburgh does an excellent job of setting the mood for the unraveling debacle that was Che's Bolivian adventure. You really get the impression of the total timidity and bewilderment of the Bolvian peasant to Che's revolutionary ideas or of the difficulties that his men faced with hunger and the terrain. Sorry to bore the attention challenged movie fan out there but that was how it happened. So don't go into this movie expecting a Rambo shoot em up, its a true story!
67 Reviews
Soderbergh resurrected
Chris_Docker1 January 2009
Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?
James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward usually everlasting love or material wealth as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.
Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.
High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).
But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.
There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.
With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.
But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.
James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward usually everlasting love or material wealth as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.
Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.
High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).
But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.
There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.
With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.
But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.
Guerrilla struggles that work, and don't
Chris Knipp29 September 2008
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.
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.
Every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor.
Otoboke28 March 2009
Following directly from where the story left off in part one, the second half which sets about telling the inevitable downfall and much more grim side of the man's legacy is exactly as such. In direct contrast to the first feature, part two represents a shift from Che the pride and glory of a revolutionised country, to Chestruggling liberator of a country to which he has no previous ties. The change of setting isn't just aesthetic; from the autumn and spring greys of the woodlands comes a change of tone and heart to the feature, replacing the optimism of the predecessor with a cynical, battered and bruised reality aligned to an all new struggle. Yet, as Che would go on to say himselfsuch a struggle is best told exactly as thata struggle. While Part One certainly helped document that initial surge to power that the revolutionary guerrilla acquired through just that, Part Two takes a much more refined, callous and bleak segment of Che's life and ambition, and gives it an assertive portrayal that is both poignant and tragic in a tangible, easy to grasp manner.
While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one manif anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who arguably- conducted the whole thing.
Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed backthere's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.
Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenesthe drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.
With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.
While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one manif anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who arguably- conducted the whole thing.
Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed backthere's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.
Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenesthe drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.
With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.
- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)
TIFF 08: Maybe our failure will wake them up
Che Part 2: Guerrilla
jaredmobarak15 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Everything that worked in the first film was thrown out for this one. As a result, the movie is actually pretty boring. We are given a detailed look into the frontlines as the insurgents wade through Bolivia trying to take out the government. Battle after battle, everything stays very much the same as they go city to city, doing their best to find victory hidden beneath the death. A crucial piece to the puzzle comes from Lou Diamond Phillips' small cameo as Mario Monje, the leader of the revolutionary group who was more for political talks and compromise rather than violence and fear. Guevara, played brilliantly once again by Benicio Del Toro, has already started the fight and due to his win or die mentality, will not back down. He is a stubborn man believing unquestionably in himself, knowing that what he is doing is the only way. Che is most definitely setup to be the hero and martyr many feel he is throughout this film. Glorified as a leader of men and a man of superior knowledge on mankind, Guerrilla is not much more than a vanity piece, showing what happened to him in his final year, never backing down and never giving up.
Again, though, is this man worthy of such praise? People around the world hail him to be a murderer and evil, but you would never think it to see Soderbergh's epic tale. The man is afflicted with constant asthma attacks having left his medication behind, stays at the front of the charge, helps those in need with his medical expertise, and leads a ragtag bunch of revolutionaries towards victory. Che is a God amongst men here, even when captured he holds such a charismatic mystique, brainwashing the guards with his celebrity to the point they want to talk to him even if they are employed to keep him captive. No one is beyond his hold, something so innocently powerful he can turn even the youngest boy into a fearless warrior, one that will follow him to his own destruction.
While it all is a straightforward war epic, fight after fight, slowly advancing and retreating depending on the outcome, we are thrust into the jungle for almost the entire film. There is no breathing room jumping back to civilization as in The Argentine, instead we stay entrenched in the battle. Because of this exotic locale, we get some stunning shots. A scene containing a group of soldiers, attempting to find their way back to Che, crossing a river is breathtaking. Due to events we see, the audience knows an ambush is likely and the suspense is high while they cross, guns over heads, music at a minimum. The overhead view is stunning and just one example of visual flair thrown in the mix. Another is with Che peering through trees at an advancing Bolivian army. Framed in blurry leaves, the army is shown with crisp silhouettes in the distance, walking through and setting up position; the composition and movement is very well done.
Along with the artistry also comes moments of contrivance. I don't know if Soderbergh didn't want too many characters running aroundthere are a lotbut one family on a farm, father, mother, and six children, come into play often. It's as though they are the only family in all of Bolivia. Che treats them well, offering extra money to buy livestock; the Bolivian army take over the land for shelter; the separated group, containing a Spanish speaking Franka Potente (how many languages does she speak?) look for advice on where to cross the river; and the Bolivians force them to give any information they can on the insurgents' whereabouts. This family is as much a crucial part to the war as Che's inclusion if the script is to be believed.
The final twenty or so minutes, dealing with Guevara captured, redeem a bit of the monotony that came before it. It is his final stand against the Bolivians, saving face and never showing fear, being the model example of a martyr, knowing his death might be just the thing to band the Bolivian people together. Del Toro knocks the part out of the park, transforming from the balding gray disguise needed to clear customs to eventually become the Che we know from the t-shirts and posters, long hair sticking out from underneath his hat. A gorgeous point of view shot at the end just adds one more instance of artistic touch, trying to make up for the more or less static camera-work shown the rest of the time.
If there was more explanation I might have become invested in the proceedings. Instead we are quite literally dropped into Bolivia and made to follow these soldiers as they do what they do, without rhyme or reason. Such a different style than The Argentine makes you feel like you could watch them separately, but with almost no character development, you'd be absolutely lost with Guerrilla coming in cold. Soderbergh definitely has created something intriguing and original, unfortunately it just doesn't quite work. Pretty to watch, but slowly paced, this installment could have been a ten minute epilogue to the first part, describing what happened to Guevara post-Cuba. Instead, we are subjected to an entire war with no purpose other than to show his capture. The war was a Vietnam scale debacle and an interesting fall of Icarus from the first's victorious fight. I just feel Soderbergh thought it was more than what it actually is. A bit bloated and unnecessary, I'd be interested to see what might happen if both films were cut together, an hour excised. Then maybe we'd have a tightly constructed full biography; otherwise, the whole experience is just too much to stay engrossed with.
Again, though, is this man worthy of such praise? People around the world hail him to be a murderer and evil, but you would never think it to see Soderbergh's epic tale. The man is afflicted with constant asthma attacks having left his medication behind, stays at the front of the charge, helps those in need with his medical expertise, and leads a ragtag bunch of revolutionaries towards victory. Che is a God amongst men here, even when captured he holds such a charismatic mystique, brainwashing the guards with his celebrity to the point they want to talk to him even if they are employed to keep him captive. No one is beyond his hold, something so innocently powerful he can turn even the youngest boy into a fearless warrior, one that will follow him to his own destruction.
While it all is a straightforward war epic, fight after fight, slowly advancing and retreating depending on the outcome, we are thrust into the jungle for almost the entire film. There is no breathing room jumping back to civilization as in The Argentine, instead we stay entrenched in the battle. Because of this exotic locale, we get some stunning shots. A scene containing a group of soldiers, attempting to find their way back to Che, crossing a river is breathtaking. Due to events we see, the audience knows an ambush is likely and the suspense is high while they cross, guns over heads, music at a minimum. The overhead view is stunning and just one example of visual flair thrown in the mix. Another is with Che peering through trees at an advancing Bolivian army. Framed in blurry leaves, the army is shown with crisp silhouettes in the distance, walking through and setting up position; the composition and movement is very well done.
Along with the artistry also comes moments of contrivance. I don't know if Soderbergh didn't want too many characters running aroundthere are a lotbut one family on a farm, father, mother, and six children, come into play often. It's as though they are the only family in all of Bolivia. Che treats them well, offering extra money to buy livestock; the Bolivian army take over the land for shelter; the separated group, containing a Spanish speaking Franka Potente (how many languages does she speak?) look for advice on where to cross the river; and the Bolivians force them to give any information they can on the insurgents' whereabouts. This family is as much a crucial part to the war as Che's inclusion if the script is to be believed.
The final twenty or so minutes, dealing with Guevara captured, redeem a bit of the monotony that came before it. It is his final stand against the Bolivians, saving face and never showing fear, being the model example of a martyr, knowing his death might be just the thing to band the Bolivian people together. Del Toro knocks the part out of the park, transforming from the balding gray disguise needed to clear customs to eventually become the Che we know from the t-shirts and posters, long hair sticking out from underneath his hat. A gorgeous point of view shot at the end just adds one more instance of artistic touch, trying to make up for the more or less static camera-work shown the rest of the time.
If there was more explanation I might have become invested in the proceedings. Instead we are quite literally dropped into Bolivia and made to follow these soldiers as they do what they do, without rhyme or reason. Such a different style than The Argentine makes you feel like you could watch them separately, but with almost no character development, you'd be absolutely lost with Guerrilla coming in cold. Soderbergh definitely has created something intriguing and original, unfortunately it just doesn't quite work. Pretty to watch, but slowly paced, this installment could have been a ten minute epilogue to the first part, describing what happened to Guevara post-Cuba. Instead, we are subjected to an entire war with no purpose other than to show his capture. The war was a Vietnam scale debacle and an interesting fall of Icarus from the first's victorious fight. I just feel Soderbergh thought it was more than what it actually is. A bit bloated and unnecessary, I'd be interested to see what might happen if both films were cut together, an hour excised. Then maybe we'd have a tightly constructed full biography; otherwise, the whole experience is just too much to stay engrossed with.
Che: A Comment.
DexterManning31 January 2009
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.
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.
Second part co-produced by Spain/USA dealing with 'Che' life and his tragic finale in Bolivia
ma-cortes26 December 2015
Overlong and a little boring followup about Che's existence in the Bolivian jungles in which Ernesto Guevara leads a small partisan army to fight an ill-fated revolutionary guerrilla war in Bolivia, South America . While the first installment was set in 1956, when Ernesto 'Che' Guevara and a band of Castro-led Cuban exiles mobilize an army to topple the regime of dictator Fulgencio Batista , this second part was set in 1967 , Bolivia . Here Che has to confront sad happenings about his few supplies and troops , his failing health, and a local population who widely does not share his idealistic aspirations . As the US supported Bolivian army prepares to defeat him , Che and his surrounded guerrilla fight the increasingly hopeless risks .
This biographic picture contains thrills , interesting political deeds , shootouts , wartime scenes and historical events . Che, El Argentino (2008) and this film were screened combined at the Cannes Film festival 2008 under the title "Che" . Terrific acting by the main starring , Benicio Del Toro as the mythical historic figure . For his role, he spent seven years researching Guevara's life . Although Benicio Del Toro was always considered the absolute first choice to headline this film , Val Kilmer was considered as a secondary option to play Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara if Del Toro had not been available. Suppport cart is frankly excellent , plenty of Spanish actors who give splendid interpretations such as Jordi Molla , Ruben Ochandiano , Yul Vazquez , Oscar Jaenada , Carlos Bardem , Elvira Minguez , Eduard Fernández , Pedro Casablanc , Luis Callejo , Antonio de la Torre , among others . And brief appearance from Matt Damon and Lou Diamond Phillips . Very good photography by the same Steven Soderbergh , as usual , being the first feature-length movie to be shot with the Red One Camera . Evocative as well as atmospheric musical score by the Oscarized Alberto Iglesias . The motion picture was professionally directed by Steven Soderbergh , though Terrence Malick originally worked on a screenplay limited to Guevara's attempts to start a revolution in Bolivia ; when financing fell through, Malick left the project, and subsequently Steven agreed to direct the film .
The movie is well based on historical facts , these are the followings : On November 3, 1966, Guevara secretly arrived in La Paz on a flight from Montevideo under the false name Adolfo Mena González, posing as a middle-aged Uruguayan businessman working for the Organization of American States . Three days after his arrival in Bolivia, Guevara left La Paz for the rural south east region of the country to form his guerrilla army. Guevara's first base camp was located in the mountain dry forest in the remote Ñancahuazú region . Training at the camp in the Ñancahuazú valley proved to be hazardous, and little was accomplished in way of building a guerrilla army . The Argentine-born East German operative Haydée Tamara Bunke Bider, better known by her nom de guerre "Tania", had been installed as Che's primary agent in La Paz . Guevara's guerrilla force, numbering about 50 men and operating as the ELN ( "National Liberation Army of Bolivia"), was well equipped and scored a number of early successes against Bolivian army regulars in the difficult terrain of the mountainous Camiri region during the early months of 1967. As a result of Guevara's units' winning several skirmishes against Bolivian troops in the spring and summer of 1967, the Bolivian government began to overestimate the true size of the guerrilla force. But in August 1967, the Bolivian Army managed to eliminate two guerrilla groups in a violent battle, reportedly killing one of the leaders. As Guevara's plan for fomenting a revolution in Bolivia failed for an array of reasons . Then Che's guerrilla running out of provisions and medicines . On October 7, 1967, an informant apprised the Bolivian Special Forces of the location of Guevara's guerrilla encampment in the Yuro ravine . With apparent American help, the army is soon onto Che, so now we see Che hunted down, the local people are unhelpful and there's a desperate hunt for food . So he has to go wandering in yet more jungle and in familiar territory, more often having to hide from search aircraft , and while being slowly encircled until his caught, after being shot in the thigh . On the morning of October 8, they encircled the area with two battalions numbering 1,800 soldiers and advanced into the ravine triggering a battle where Guevara was wounded and taken prisoner while leading a detachment . Guevara was tied up and taken to a dilapidated mud schoolhouse and then Bolivian President René Barrientos ordered that Guevara be killed. The executioner who volunteered to kill Guevara was Mario Terán, a sergeant who had personally requested to shoot him because three of his friends from B Company, had been killed in an earlier firefight with Guevara's band of guerrillas. To make the bullet wounds appear consistent with the story that the Bolivian government planned to release to the public, Félix Rodríguez ordered Terán not to shoot Guevara in the head, but to aim carefully to make it appear that Guevara had been killed in action during a clash with the Bolivian army .
This biographic picture contains thrills , interesting political deeds , shootouts , wartime scenes and historical events . Che, El Argentino (2008) and this film were screened combined at the Cannes Film festival 2008 under the title "Che" . Terrific acting by the main starring , Benicio Del Toro as the mythical historic figure . For his role, he spent seven years researching Guevara's life . Although Benicio Del Toro was always considered the absolute first choice to headline this film , Val Kilmer was considered as a secondary option to play Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara if Del Toro had not been available. Suppport cart is frankly excellent , plenty of Spanish actors who give splendid interpretations such as Jordi Molla , Ruben Ochandiano , Yul Vazquez , Oscar Jaenada , Carlos Bardem , Elvira Minguez , Eduard Fernández , Pedro Casablanc , Luis Callejo , Antonio de la Torre , among others . And brief appearance from Matt Damon and Lou Diamond Phillips . Very good photography by the same Steven Soderbergh , as usual , being the first feature-length movie to be shot with the Red One Camera . Evocative as well as atmospheric musical score by the Oscarized Alberto Iglesias . The motion picture was professionally directed by Steven Soderbergh , though Terrence Malick originally worked on a screenplay limited to Guevara's attempts to start a revolution in Bolivia ; when financing fell through, Malick left the project, and subsequently Steven agreed to direct the film .
The movie is well based on historical facts , these are the followings : On November 3, 1966, Guevara secretly arrived in La Paz on a flight from Montevideo under the false name Adolfo Mena González, posing as a middle-aged Uruguayan businessman working for the Organization of American States . Three days after his arrival in Bolivia, Guevara left La Paz for the rural south east region of the country to form his guerrilla army. Guevara's first base camp was located in the mountain dry forest in the remote Ñancahuazú region . Training at the camp in the Ñancahuazú valley proved to be hazardous, and little was accomplished in way of building a guerrilla army . The Argentine-born East German operative Haydée Tamara Bunke Bider, better known by her nom de guerre "Tania", had been installed as Che's primary agent in La Paz . Guevara's guerrilla force, numbering about 50 men and operating as the ELN ( "National Liberation Army of Bolivia"), was well equipped and scored a number of early successes against Bolivian army regulars in the difficult terrain of the mountainous Camiri region during the early months of 1967. As a result of Guevara's units' winning several skirmishes against Bolivian troops in the spring and summer of 1967, the Bolivian government began to overestimate the true size of the guerrilla force. But in August 1967, the Bolivian Army managed to eliminate two guerrilla groups in a violent battle, reportedly killing one of the leaders. As Guevara's plan for fomenting a revolution in Bolivia failed for an array of reasons . Then Che's guerrilla running out of provisions and medicines . On October 7, 1967, an informant apprised the Bolivian Special Forces of the location of Guevara's guerrilla encampment in the Yuro ravine . With apparent American help, the army is soon onto Che, so now we see Che hunted down, the local people are unhelpful and there's a desperate hunt for food . So he has to go wandering in yet more jungle and in familiar territory, more often having to hide from search aircraft , and while being slowly encircled until his caught, after being shot in the thigh . On the morning of October 8, they encircled the area with two battalions numbering 1,800 soldiers and advanced into the ravine triggering a battle where Guevara was wounded and taken prisoner while leading a detachment . Guevara was tied up and taken to a dilapidated mud schoolhouse and then Bolivian President René Barrientos ordered that Guevara be killed. The executioner who volunteered to kill Guevara was Mario Terán, a sergeant who had personally requested to shoot him because three of his friends from B Company, had been killed in an earlier firefight with Guevara's band of guerrillas. To make the bullet wounds appear consistent with the story that the Bolivian government planned to release to the public, Félix Rodríguez ordered Terán not to shoot Guevara in the head, but to aim carefully to make it appear that Guevara had been killed in action during a clash with the Bolivian army .
Notes From An Argentinean plus a Personal Confession
carlostallman17 January 2009
I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen
Che part I was a disappointment mostly in terms of direction
socrates9931 March 2009
I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.
A Refined, Seminally Important Biopic With An Unprecedentedly Discriminate and Disciplined Approach
jzappa4 October 2009
Possibly the most brilliant thing about Che: Part Two, as we begin to integrate it with Part One in our minds, is that there is no clarification of why Che chose to confidentially abscond from Cuba after the revolution, no allusion to his experience in the Congo, no clarification of why he chose Bolivia as his subsequent setting for a coup d'etat, no allusion to the political decisions he made as a young man motorcycling across South America, which Walter Salles has given prominent familiarity. Extraordinary focus is given to Che meeting the volunteers who accompany his guerrilla factions. Yet hardly any endeavor is made to single them out as individuals, to establish involved relationships. He is reasonably unreasonable. Che drives an unbreakable doctrine to leave no wounded man behind. But there is no feeling that he is deeply directly concerned with his men. It is the concept.
In Part 1, in Cuba, the rebels are welcomed by the people of the villages, given food and cover, supported in what grows to be a victorious revolution. Here, in Bolivia, not much understanding is apparent. Villagers expose him. They protect government troops, not his own. When he expounds on the onesidedness of the government medical system, his audience appears uninterested. You cannot lead a people into revolution if they do not want to comply. Soderbergh shows U.S. military advisers working with the Bolivians, but doesn't fault the United States for Che's collapse. Che seems to have just misfigured his fight and the place where he wanted to have it.
In showcasing both wars, Soderbergh doesn't build his battle scenes as actions with specific results. Che's men attack and are attacked. They exchange fire with faraway assailants. There is generally a cut to the group in the aftershock of combat, its death toll not paused for. This is not a war movie. It is about one man's reasonably unreasonable drive to endure. There is no elaborate cinematography. Soderbergh looks firmly at Che's inflexible dedication. There are remarkable sporadic visceral shots, but being few they are all the more powerful, such as Che's POV shot during his final beats. There is an abundance of the terrain, where these men live for weeks at a time, and the all-consuming effect is of languor, Guevara himself having malaria part of the time.
Benicio Del Toro, one of the film's producers, gives a champion's performance, not least because it's modest. He isn't portrayed as the cutting edge like most epic heroes. In Cuba, he arises in conquest, in Bolivia, he falls to the reverse, and occasionally is actually difficult to distinguish behind a tangle of beard and hair. Del Toro illustrates not so much an identity as an attitude. You may think the film is too long. I think there's a genuine cause for its breadth. Guevara's affairs in Cuba and particularly Bolivia was not a sequence of episodes and sketches, but an undertaking of staying power that might virtually be called insane. In the end, Che as a whole or in parts is a commercially ballsy movie, one where its director begins by understanding the limits innate in cinematic biography and working progressively within those means.
In Part 1, in Cuba, the rebels are welcomed by the people of the villages, given food and cover, supported in what grows to be a victorious revolution. Here, in Bolivia, not much understanding is apparent. Villagers expose him. They protect government troops, not his own. When he expounds on the onesidedness of the government medical system, his audience appears uninterested. You cannot lead a people into revolution if they do not want to comply. Soderbergh shows U.S. military advisers working with the Bolivians, but doesn't fault the United States for Che's collapse. Che seems to have just misfigured his fight and the place where he wanted to have it.
In showcasing both wars, Soderbergh doesn't build his battle scenes as actions with specific results. Che's men attack and are attacked. They exchange fire with faraway assailants. There is generally a cut to the group in the aftershock of combat, its death toll not paused for. This is not a war movie. It is about one man's reasonably unreasonable drive to endure. There is no elaborate cinematography. Soderbergh looks firmly at Che's inflexible dedication. There are remarkable sporadic visceral shots, but being few they are all the more powerful, such as Che's POV shot during his final beats. There is an abundance of the terrain, where these men live for weeks at a time, and the all-consuming effect is of languor, Guevara himself having malaria part of the time.
Benicio Del Toro, one of the film's producers, gives a champion's performance, not least because it's modest. He isn't portrayed as the cutting edge like most epic heroes. In Cuba, he arises in conquest, in Bolivia, he falls to the reverse, and occasionally is actually difficult to distinguish behind a tangle of beard and hair. Del Toro illustrates not so much an identity as an attitude. You may think the film is too long. I think there's a genuine cause for its breadth. Guevara's affairs in Cuba and particularly Bolivia was not a sequence of episodes and sketches, but an undertaking of staying power that might virtually be called insane. In the end, Che as a whole or in parts is a commercially ballsy movie, one where its director begins by understanding the limits innate in cinematic biography and working progressively within those means.
Che was a REAL people's hero!
LaxFan9418 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've read up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: "If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!" I couldn't have said it any better myself.
But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10.
But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10.
decline of a revolutionary
Quinoa198412 December 2008
Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.
As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.
Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10
As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.
Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10
The tee shirt idol
jotix1006 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The irony of watching the events depicted in this film is to see what Bolivia, as a country, achieved by somewhat peaceful means more than what Ernesto Guevara was trying to do in their name in the late 1960s. This Latin American revered icon of the guerrilla movement grossly miscalculated his adventure in the country, even at the time they were under a tyrannical regime.
Mr. Guevara didn't count on the natives' natural distrust for any foreigner in their soil, which is apparent in the way it comes out in the second part of the Steven Soderbergh's saga. Not only was Guevara a foreigner to the natives, but the men that he brought from Cuba also stuck out because the way they spoke to the people they tried to enlist in the struggle. It becomes clear in the narrative, there was Cuban help by Mr. Castro for the project. The men he sent to accompany Che in his adventure were mostly Cubans who were asked by Guevara not to speak for fear their accents would derail his endeavor. Those fighters were ill prepared as well as the expedition proved to being ill timed.
The second installment on the legend takes him to a hostile land. Che Guevara was an asthmatic man who was betrayed by the elements, as it is shown in the film. The same people he tried to inspire clearly did not get the message this Argentine revolutionary wanted to leave them with. Little by little most of the men he was able to bring to the cause were demoralized by a superior enemy, better prepared to fight their revolt. Ultimately, Guevara had to pay the price in a sacrifice that propelled him to the sainthood of all the world's leftist factions, as he became the face in the tee shirt that young people love to wear, not having a clue as to the spirit of the man, himself.
Benicio Del Toro deserves credit for undertaking this project. Without him, the film couldn't probably have been made. For an actor, Mr. Del Toro couldn't even fake an Argentine accent, something that really is notable in the film. This being basically a Spanish language feature, it shows a cast of multinational actors, like Joaquim De Almeida, Franka Potente, just to name a few, whose accented voices don't sound real.
It's curious that as we write this comment Bolivians are going to the polls in democratic fashion to elect their representative without fear, or interference from dictatorial regimes like the one Che Guevara left behind in Cuba.
Mr. Guevara didn't count on the natives' natural distrust for any foreigner in their soil, which is apparent in the way it comes out in the second part of the Steven Soderbergh's saga. Not only was Guevara a foreigner to the natives, but the men that he brought from Cuba also stuck out because the way they spoke to the people they tried to enlist in the struggle. It becomes clear in the narrative, there was Cuban help by Mr. Castro for the project. The men he sent to accompany Che in his adventure were mostly Cubans who were asked by Guevara not to speak for fear their accents would derail his endeavor. Those fighters were ill prepared as well as the expedition proved to being ill timed.
The second installment on the legend takes him to a hostile land. Che Guevara was an asthmatic man who was betrayed by the elements, as it is shown in the film. The same people he tried to inspire clearly did not get the message this Argentine revolutionary wanted to leave them with. Little by little most of the men he was able to bring to the cause were demoralized by a superior enemy, better prepared to fight their revolt. Ultimately, Guevara had to pay the price in a sacrifice that propelled him to the sainthood of all the world's leftist factions, as he became the face in the tee shirt that young people love to wear, not having a clue as to the spirit of the man, himself.
Benicio Del Toro deserves credit for undertaking this project. Without him, the film couldn't probably have been made. For an actor, Mr. Del Toro couldn't even fake an Argentine accent, something that really is notable in the film. This being basically a Spanish language feature, it shows a cast of multinational actors, like Joaquim De Almeida, Franka Potente, just to name a few, whose accented voices don't sound real.
It's curious that as we write this comment Bolivians are going to the polls in democratic fashion to elect their representative without fear, or interference from dictatorial regimes like the one Che Guevara left behind in Cuba.
Boring dramadoc that goes nowhere
badajoz-126 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Just like part One, a dramatised documentary of such sanitised material that it quickly becomes, and remains, an exceedingly boring watch. No matter del Toro's acting, the script is devoid of any real insight into Che - no, Mr Soderbergh, it is not enough just to have made the film, it has to take on the issues regarding this iconic figure, and you don't!!! The film just watches a bunch of guerillas hopelessly meandering around Bolivia without a strategy or even a workable plan to overturn the regime - just like the first part, so why did one succeed and not the other? A couple of passing answers are hinted at, but nothing to stir or engage the viewer. And what was the point of not showing Che's end, with all the curious onlookers at his naked dead body? Answers please on a postcard! It was only the fact that the US had executed Bin Laden in similar vein and dumped the body that there was any resonance to the tame ending.
Too kind to Che
rogerdarlington28 February 2009
Part One left Che on the road to Havana following the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship; Part Two jumps forward seven years, so that we miss out his time as a Minister in Castro's government and his abortive adventures in the Congo. Compared to the earlier film, this second element of the diptych is much tighter than the first in narrative terms, focusing only on Che's year in Bolivia (1966-67) and takes a straightforward chronological approach.
It has some of the strengths of the first film: the cinematography and direction of Steven Soderbergh, which give the whole work a lifelike, almost documentary feel, and the superb acting of Benicio del Toro who - even more than before - is rarely off the screen. However, the narrative is less compelling this time with the guerrillas seemingly going from one place to another with no obvious strategy. The main criticism of both parts though is that we have over four hours of excessively reverential treatment of an immensely controversial figure with little acknowledgement of the egotism that was at the heart of the doomed Bolivian mission.
It has some of the strengths of the first film: the cinematography and direction of Steven Soderbergh, which give the whole work a lifelike, almost documentary feel, and the superb acting of Benicio del Toro who - even more than before - is rarely off the screen. However, the narrative is less compelling this time with the guerrillas seemingly going from one place to another with no obvious strategy. The main criticism of both parts though is that we have over four hours of excessively reverential treatment of an immensely controversial figure with little acknowledgement of the egotism that was at the heart of the doomed Bolivian mission.
Well made- but far from intriguing movie.
Boba_Fett11389 October 2010
Just as was the case with the first movie, this is a well made one but it's also a far from involving or interesting one. Seriously, if you want to learn about Che Guevara you are better off simply reading a book or watch a documentary about him because this movie will learn you very little.
It's quite annoying how this movie doesn't really bother to explain anything or go deeper into detail with certain things. Even the character of Che remains a kind of flat one and you just don't know what is going on in his head or what his exact motivations and true beliefs were. He is mostly being a very unpredictable character that you just can't ever really care about.
To add to the confusion of it all, even more characters get introduced this time. There are dozens and dozens of speaking roles in this movie and each of those characters have a name as well. Why should we care about any of them when we can't even tell who is who anymore after a while. There are simply too many characters and the movie should had focused more on just an handful of them. It would had made the movie far more involving to watch and easier to follow.
Even though you can't really hate this movie, it's also not really a movie that is very pleasant to watch due to its overall approach. It's a hard movie to get through and you really have to sit down to watch it, without any distractions. Yet, strange as it might sound, I liked this movie a tad bit better than the first one. The overall flow was more pleasant and more was happening in this movie, although it still remains a sort of slow- and at times dragging one. The movie didn't seemed as messy and random with some of its sequences this time, almost as if they had more time to put this movie together in the editing room than was the case with the first part.
With the first movie it still seemed quite pointless that they spend so many millions of dollars on it. I mean, the movie is about just a bunch of guys going to the jungle. With this movie the money seems better spend. It has more different settings in it and also far more action. But don't think that this means this movie is an action movie please.
It remains a really well made film but don't watch this expecting to be grabbed- or learn anything from it. A good movie but without a real heart or message.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's quite annoying how this movie doesn't really bother to explain anything or go deeper into detail with certain things. Even the character of Che remains a kind of flat one and you just don't know what is going on in his head or what his exact motivations and true beliefs were. He is mostly being a very unpredictable character that you just can't ever really care about.
To add to the confusion of it all, even more characters get introduced this time. There are dozens and dozens of speaking roles in this movie and each of those characters have a name as well. Why should we care about any of them when we can't even tell who is who anymore after a while. There are simply too many characters and the movie should had focused more on just an handful of them. It would had made the movie far more involving to watch and easier to follow.
Even though you can't really hate this movie, it's also not really a movie that is very pleasant to watch due to its overall approach. It's a hard movie to get through and you really have to sit down to watch it, without any distractions. Yet, strange as it might sound, I liked this movie a tad bit better than the first one. The overall flow was more pleasant and more was happening in this movie, although it still remains a sort of slow- and at times dragging one. The movie didn't seemed as messy and random with some of its sequences this time, almost as if they had more time to put this movie together in the editing room than was the case with the first part.
With the first movie it still seemed quite pointless that they spend so many millions of dollars on it. I mean, the movie is about just a bunch of guys going to the jungle. With this movie the money seems better spend. It has more different settings in it and also far more action. But don't think that this means this movie is an action movie please.
It remains a really well made film but don't watch this expecting to be grabbed- or learn anything from it. A good movie but without a real heart or message.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
This is How it Ends
view_and_review11 June 2021
As a production, and grading purely upon being cinema-worthy, "Che: Part Two" wasn't as good as "Che: Part One." That is not to say that Che Guevara himself was somehow not as good, that would be blasphemous. A person will always keep their value even if they enter a phase of life in which they're not as active or effective.
After the events of "Che: Part One," Che Guevara (played by Benicio del Toro) went to Bolivia to help them in their attempt at revolution. You may be saying to yourself, like I was saying, "I didn't know Bolivia had a revolution in the 60's." That's because it didn't have nearly the traction or success as the revolution in Cuba. Per "Che: Part Two," the commitment, the resolve, nor the support was present in Bolivia as it was in Cuba.
But as a movie, "Che: Part Two" didn't live up to the standard set by "Che: Part One" because of a couple of things. 1.) the half-hearted revolution which resulted in seemingly aimless wandering through the jungles of Bolivia. 2.) The pacing of the movie. It moved rapidly by jumping from scene to scene without much happening.
"Che 2" did establish one thing: Che Guevara was committed to revolution for all of Latin America. That type of commitment is rare. He just had a victory in Cuba. He could've remained in Cuba as a hero with a high post and a comfortable lifestyle. He could've gone back to Mexico to rejoin his family. Or he could've gone on a speaking tour around the world. His options were limitless, yet he chose the rugged, austere, and deadly life of a guerrilla.
Even though I didn't like "Che 2" as much as part one, I'm glad it was made and I'm glad I watched it. I knew pitifully little about Che, and I still do, but these two movies have given me a semblance of knowledge about a man who is so revered.
After the events of "Che: Part One," Che Guevara (played by Benicio del Toro) went to Bolivia to help them in their attempt at revolution. You may be saying to yourself, like I was saying, "I didn't know Bolivia had a revolution in the 60's." That's because it didn't have nearly the traction or success as the revolution in Cuba. Per "Che: Part Two," the commitment, the resolve, nor the support was present in Bolivia as it was in Cuba.
But as a movie, "Che: Part Two" didn't live up to the standard set by "Che: Part One" because of a couple of things. 1.) the half-hearted revolution which resulted in seemingly aimless wandering through the jungles of Bolivia. 2.) The pacing of the movie. It moved rapidly by jumping from scene to scene without much happening.
"Che 2" did establish one thing: Che Guevara was committed to revolution for all of Latin America. That type of commitment is rare. He just had a victory in Cuba. He could've remained in Cuba as a hero with a high post and a comfortable lifestyle. He could've gone back to Mexico to rejoin his family. Or he could've gone on a speaking tour around the world. His options were limitless, yet he chose the rugged, austere, and deadly life of a guerrilla.
Even though I didn't like "Che 2" as much as part one, I'm glad it was made and I'm glad I watched it. I knew pitifully little about Che, and I still do, but these two movies have given me a semblance of knowledge about a man who is so revered.
Another part
stensson19 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.
Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.
The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded.
Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.
The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded.
Part two is a great standalone film, beautifully filmed, inspiring and tragic
Robert_Woodward12 March 2009
I came to watch Guerrilla, part two of Steven Soderbergh's biopic of Che Guevara, without having seen the preceding film and without more than a cursory knowledge of Che's life. At the same time I was rather apprehensive that this would be both a heavy-going history lesson and an unrepentant love-letter to the iconic revolutionary. As it turns out, this film far exceeded my expectations.
Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.
Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.
The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.
If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel.
Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.
Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.
The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.
If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel.
in the wilderness with Che
SnoopyStyle26 July 2015
Part Two is titled Guerrilla. In 1965, Che disappears from Cuba and declares in a letter read by Castro that he intends to go abroad to spread the revolution. In 1966, he arrives in Bolivia in disguise. He joins a local group of revolutionaries. However he finds it difficult to recruit from the distrustful locals. He struggles to gain their trust. His group suffers desertions and loses. They are outnumbered and hounded by the Army and its CIA advisers.
This part uses a straight forward timeline. The problem is that the story is a long slow downhill trek. The movie incorporates that feeling and it's a grind. The story meanders aimlessly like the guerrillas. It's also repetitive as the days seem to be the same over and over again. Che has nothing but problems as they grind him down. In the process, they grind down the audience.
This part uses a straight forward timeline. The problem is that the story is a long slow downhill trek. The movie incorporates that feeling and it's a grind. The story meanders aimlessly like the guerrillas. It's also repetitive as the days seem to be the same over and over again. Che has nothing but problems as they grind him down. In the process, they grind down the audience.
Post
Polaris_DiB6 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.
The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.
But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.
--PolarisDiB
The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.
But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.
--PolarisDiB
Che dies like a rat in Bolivia
thetravellinggourmet-120 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Many fools idolise Che Guevera, who was a stinking commie creep that fermented revolution in Cuba. Emboldened by his success in Cuba, he decided to go and try his luck in Bolivia by winning the hearts and minds of illiterate peasants to join his guerilla war. Well, we all know the end as it is a historical fact and he deserved to die, shot down like a dirty rat. The film is good in that the firefights are very realistic and it captures the fog of war, that total confusion when all hell breaks loose and all you think about is getting some cover so you won't take a hit, and maybe get one of the enemy before he gets you. The firefights show no flashing lights and sparks when the bullets hit a place which is absolutely realistic. When people get shot they don't fly back like they were hit by a truck and the movie captures this, NOT spectacular but very realistic. It is in a way an anti-war film as it shows the dirty, gritty side of fighting days on end with no bath, no shave, no hot food, no Macdonald's big macs and no comforts of home far away in a distant place in harm's way. See this if you dream of glory fighting for your country in some God forsaken hellhole like Afghanistan, and maybe you'll decide your boring 9 to 5 life is much better. There is no glory, no Rambo bravado and no Hollywood fanfare in this movie, just men in a difficult situation trying their best to survive day to day. Che is shown using an M2/3 Carbine .30cal selective fire weapon from the WW2 era with a 30 rd banana magazine. It is a lousy weapon, and after 30m, the knock down power is very poor. As the Bolivian Rangers close in on him he is shown panicking and shooting wildly on full auto wasting ammo. Professionals use semi-auto fire to save ammo especially when there is no re-supply possible. This is a sanitised movie in many ways, primarily in that the Bolivian Army takes the credit for Che's capture and Termination with Extreme Prejudice. A certain company did a lot too, or did they? Neither confirm or deny...Che deserved his end; he was as stinking hippie commie creep. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
A Biopic of Idealistic Proportion
rama-2823 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Part II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.
As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.
I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling.
As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.
I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling.
Even more boring than Part I
Tcarts7629 October 2012
"Che Part II" follows Che Guevara as he sneaks himself into Bolivia and gets together a gorilla force to fight for all that is Marxist in South America.
It suffers from the same drab, boring writing, scene selection, and overall boringness of part I. Let's face it folks, Benicio Del Toro only won an award from this 2 movie snoozefest because Europeans now worship at the alter of anything leftist.
The biggest problem with this 2 part movie is that it leaves out the story between the Cuban Revolution, and his reappearance in Bolivia. The time period that is well known to Cuban refugees, and always left out by marxist supporters. That is the part of history where Che gets a reputation as being quite the Inhumane humanitarian. Its the time when he rules over a prison where people are stripped of all human rights and killed. The also neglected to write in the part of history where Fidel agrees to release political prisoners, but because he and Che had already did what communist nations do, they call it a "purge" but most people call it murder, he just send all his criminals to Miami.
They do again get one thing right in part 2 as they did in part 1. They portrayed Che as he was, a poor military leader. I also think though that they may have really ignored a real reason for leaving Cuba. That is called EGO. Che had a big ego. This may explain why Che just disappears and later Castro reads his letter. After his speech at the U.N. Fidel Castro might have felt that Che may get more famous and popular than him, that would explain why there wasn't a ton of Cuban help for his endeavor. Che was a devout marxist and believed in the cause. I can't argue that, but he may have been looking to become a bigger figure than Castro, and wanted to lead a "Domino effect" army of communist revolutions with himself as leader and dictator. It may just be possible.
Again, both movies together make for a most boring 4 hours of bad dialog (in Spanish), dull scenes, little to no action, and a real sense of ,"Why did I waste my time watching this crap?" and " Why would anyone waste this much film and never really entertain the viewer at all?" "Che part II is just the last 2 hours of 4 that you will never get back.
It suffers from the same drab, boring writing, scene selection, and overall boringness of part I. Let's face it folks, Benicio Del Toro only won an award from this 2 movie snoozefest because Europeans now worship at the alter of anything leftist.
The biggest problem with this 2 part movie is that it leaves out the story between the Cuban Revolution, and his reappearance in Bolivia. The time period that is well known to Cuban refugees, and always left out by marxist supporters. That is the part of history where Che gets a reputation as being quite the Inhumane humanitarian. Its the time when he rules over a prison where people are stripped of all human rights and killed. The also neglected to write in the part of history where Fidel agrees to release political prisoners, but because he and Che had already did what communist nations do, they call it a "purge" but most people call it murder, he just send all his criminals to Miami.
They do again get one thing right in part 2 as they did in part 1. They portrayed Che as he was, a poor military leader. I also think though that they may have really ignored a real reason for leaving Cuba. That is called EGO. Che had a big ego. This may explain why Che just disappears and later Castro reads his letter. After his speech at the U.N. Fidel Castro might have felt that Che may get more famous and popular than him, that would explain why there wasn't a ton of Cuban help for his endeavor. Che was a devout marxist and believed in the cause. I can't argue that, but he may have been looking to become a bigger figure than Castro, and wanted to lead a "Domino effect" army of communist revolutions with himself as leader and dictator. It may just be possible.
Again, both movies together make for a most boring 4 hours of bad dialog (in Spanish), dull scenes, little to no action, and a real sense of ,"Why did I waste my time watching this crap?" and " Why would anyone waste this much film and never really entertain the viewer at all?" "Che part II is just the last 2 hours of 4 that you will never get back.
Beautifully Made; A Labor of Love.
isabelle195515 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully I might say lovingly made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.
If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.
Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.
The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.
Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.
But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy !"
If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.
Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.
The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.
Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.
But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy !"
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
