Che: Part One (2008)

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

So this was a decent story, and as someone who will never be caught wearing a Che t-shirt ( and I will NEVER let my child wear one), I thought it was at least a decent portrayal of the man. At least for the time period this movie covers. The acting itself, in my opinion, wasn't stellar. Benicio Del Toro did a good enough job, but not enough to make me say, "wow, amazing." The style of the movie was almost like a documentary which adds to it's understated monotone dullness. In fact, for a movie that's suppose to be illustrating the Marxist Cuban revolution, you would expect to see a bit more compelling action. If this is the best they could do, I think Soderberg should have came up with a new name to release it under.There was some rather distracting scenes, shot in black and white, that were flash forwards of Che, getting ready, and addressing the United Nation. I believe the biggest reason for this was to hide something that casted Che in a negative light in the Revolution scenes. I applaud the fact that they did include a theme that most of the high school and college kids that wander aimlessly wearing this man on a T-shirt probably missed. That is that he was NOT a good military leader. I can't complain in this movie that they didn't portray him realistically because they did (...and I hate everything about the guy). There are scenes that show him given command of rear echelon troops, and continually removed from the frontlines despite his desire to be a "real" revolutionary fighter. In fact his rise was due to a friendship he had with Castro, and the fact that he, as a doctor, filled an important "winning the hearts and minds" of the poor Cuban people role.There was an obvious, yet understated political motivation for this movie especially when it ignores the fact that Castro was supported in some ways by the U.S. and did an immediate betrayal after his successful coup and aligned themselves with the Soviet Union.I have just started watching the second part and have some real problems, but I'll address those when I review part II, but I think it is somewhat telling that there is a big gap in time ( one that would be extremely detrimental to his "heroic" lore) between movies, That I am sure was done for a politically ideological reasons (But not enough to be over the top in a Oliver Stone bonehead way.SO Part 1 gets 5 stars for me. It is rather dry, boring, but does stick to some of the facts, and isn't an overboard Hollywood propaganda piece for the Marxist crowd.

Any biopic on the life of Ernest "Che" Guevara is going to provoke controversy and inevitable interest in the subject matter. He was one of the most recognizable figures of the latter half of the 20th century world stage, and his legacy is ripe fruit for dissection in the film format.Unfortunately, "Che: Part One" really struggles in the content and pacing areas. Much of the film jumps back and forth between two time periods, which isn't bad in itself, but the combination of the two often feels inadequate when the main plot line of the revolution in Cuba is so lacking. As other reviewers have noted, much of the film is of the rebel army moving through the jungle and encountering Batista's forces in tense firefights and standoffs. Very little of Che is explored as an individual, but rather is understated by both Del Toro and the filmmakers, preferring to focus on his role as a leader, doctor, and guerilla. As a result, the viewer leaves with very little knowledge gained besides from what we already know about him, via his command decisions in the field, his relationship with the soldados and country people, and his speeches at the UN. This is not an intimate, inside view of Guevara, but a spectacle of the humanity of the uprising in Cuba and the bond between the guerillas.The story-telling is very straight forward, and for 2 and a half hours the viewer is treated to an almost "fly on the wall" perspective of the events, with a mostly static, mounted camera giving a majority of wide-shots. There are little close-ups and sparse editing. It is all very methodical and almost minimalistic in its approach. The film is very dry in its treatment of the historical subject matter, although saying this would also disservice the good acting chemistry between the actors, who all give very naturalistic performances. The atmosphere created through these elements and the fantastic cinematography are mostly what drives the film forward.While it definitely drags in the middle, the film makes up for it towards the end with an exciting ending detailing the Battle for Santa Clara. The optimism as the revolution finally comes to a head in the finale leaves the film ending on a high note, and I was eager to see Part 2 and the conclusion of this story.Although much material is left out, subject matter that would have shown Che having to make difficult/personal/challenging decisions as he and his compatriots seek to change their world for the better would have been welcome. As it stands, this is a faithful, but not entirely satisfying account of "The Argentine".

Just what we need. A movie that glorifies a butcher and an idea that Killed over 100 million people. Why not make a movie that shows the true face of Communism? Let's show, what it brings: A high death right and a low standard of living. A much more accurate film to watch is; "Katyn". This film shows how the Soviets murdered in cold blood thousands of Polish officers. Yet, no one heralds this true movie. Che was a racist and a hater of Gays. How many more movies do we need about this murderer? How does that wash in Hollywood? Why not make a movie about Heinrich Himmler and show his human side? Why do movie makers love Communism so much? They should go and live in North Korea or Cuba. What dribble!

I was really disappointed by the lack of preparation by Benicio Del Toro, his accent is that of a Puerto Rican imitating a Cuban (at times) only at the beginning of the film does he sound Argentine.The extras in the different towns are clearly people of shall we say,, Indian-mestizo decent - (they could easily pass for Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadoreans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Peruvians). you wont find that make up in Cuba. Columbus and the Spaniards made sure of that.The guy playing Fidel oddly enough has an Argentinian accent, So I paused the movie and then come here to IMDb and see that he is from Mexico, so I have no idea what is going on there with that guy.I was very disappointed at Benicio Del Toro, because if your gonna play a guy from Brooklyn you shouldn't sound like a guy from South Carolina.The only one that seemed to take the job seriously was the woman that played Aleida. she is originally from Colombia, and she at times did sound Cuban.VERY Disappointed ALL AROUND BY THIS PRODUCTION :-(