Bento de Espinosa
I'm totally critical of all kinds of ideologies and 100% against personality cult. I have my own opinions and know what is good and bad in both capitalism and communism. One may dislike or even hate Che Guevara, who also executed people, but he'll have to acknowledge that he was very courageous and sincerely motivated to help poor people get a better life. This can't be said about people like Lenin, of course.I found Part Two better than Part One, with more tension, but probably because when you know a story is not going to have a happy ending, then it's even more interesting. The movie as a whole is "only" good, but with del Toro's very convincing performance, it comes close to being excellent.
BigLaxFan94
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.
marsmanx
Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
david-greene5
Having just completed a viewing of both parts one and two of this lengthy film (and I really like lengthy films if they are good), I feel that a great many of the artists involved in its making, both cast and crew, did a lot of admirable work. Somehow, the whole thing held my interest fairly well; however, the big problem with the film lies with the long shot. The director chose to keep his camera at a considerable distance from his subjects, eschewing the occasional close-up altogether too often for my taste. This stylistic choice is symbolic of the biggest flaw in the film. We see the great ordeal that Guevara underwent for his beliefs, and the nobility of his unflagging commitment to his crusade clearly presented here. The problem lies with the emptiness of sitting through so much footage without ever being allowed enough "closeness" to the principal characters to get a feeling of connection with them. From what I have read, Che was a very complex, intelligent fellow. I would have liked to get to know him a little bit, but this film seemed to be so much about his deeds, and so little about what distinguished him as a person that I am surprised when some of the comments on this site suggest that their authors felt that some depth of character was conveyed. In the end, I feel as though I just saw endless hours of newsreel footage. It was a very chilly, impersonal experience. Noting that as gifted and capable an artist as Benicio Del Toro was not only the star, but the producer, I have to commend him for resisting all temptation to give his portrayal any of the kind of stylistic flourish that distinguishes star performers. Unfortunately, this contributed to the distance at which the whole movie keeps us from a feeling of personal involvement with the protagonist. If Soderberg's sole purpose was to convey a sense of the magnitude of Guevara's struggle and sacrifice, he succeeds in this. Sadly, I feel the whole vast production could have offered us a much richer human experience. As hard and inflexible as a revolutionary's commitment to his particular ideology, this movie builds up a brick wall which consistently denies us any intimacy with its subject.
AD
