Che: Part One

Che: Part One

Moviecut—Che: Part One

He was a revolutionary fighter, a doctor, a social philosopher and a martyr who turned to armed warfare as a 'necessary' means of stamping out the foreign complexities, poverty and injustice that had bled South America for centuries. He was a Marxist, a writer, a guerrilla and a diplomat who rose to prominence as a leader of Fidel Castro's radical '26th of July Movement': a left wing political party that launched an armed invasion of Cuba rapt on toppling U.S backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. This historical revolt: the focal point of director Steven Soderbergh's enduring, coarse and superbly crafted part one of two biopic. A sometimes bitty, sometimes brilliant hand-held epic that succeeds in its failure to fall into the consumer culture camp that's exploited Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's image now for so long. Steven Soderbergh refrains, then, from counteracting the magnitude of Che: Part One's dense political platform by ramping up the fireworks. This wont appeal to mainstream viewers. This is not a Cuban Braveheart. This is not some twisted Scarface prequel. There will be no post-movie pop-art. Che: Part One is an intelligent and vital take on the man behind the myth not a balls-to-the-wall action spectacle blaring with blood, bullets and CGI. It's a thorough and naturalistic treatise on iconic human drive and endeavour that infrequently shuttles between monochrome and Technicolor, between Che Guevara's 1964 delegation at the UN headquarters and time spent trudging through the Cuban jungle. If your understanding of certain political ideals and movements are, at best, hazy- then it's best to steer clear of this one. You're likely are likely to find the first serving of Soderbergh's four-and-a-half-hour, two part political epic a little confusing. This ain't no Hollywood funded, slick and stylish, over-dramatic chronicle concerned with entertainment or income. This isn't 'Defiance' or 'Valkrye'. This is a well-researched, claustrophobic and paced political drama (shot in Spanish) where spurts of action, violence and humour are few and far between. Imagine Oliver Stone's 'Salvador' by the way of Terrance Mallick's 'The Thin Red Line': fragmented, anti-mainstream and very heavy-going. The bravura Benicio Del Toro stars as Che and is quite excellent. He delivers a focused and unwavering performance worthy of a thousand accolades: his finest since '21 Grams'. The fact that Del Toro is fluent in Spanish also helps, as does a rallying and unknown supporting cast that work well as a low-key ensemble. It's all about Del Toro, though. His insurgent, intense and convincing Che is one marred by crippling bouts of asthma yet defined by a burning desire to educate and reform- to put his litigious beliefs into action and unite Latin America. With Che: Part One, the diligent Steven Soderbergh has found his blend of realism and narrative, documentary and drama. As an avid Che fan and reader of his books and biographies, there is little doubt in my mind that this monumental work will stand as the first piece in the definitive two part screen portrait of one the twentieth century's most iconic, yet largely uncharted, political figures. Final Verdict: While lesser films wallow in the limelight, Che: Part One stirs understated in the shadows seemingly content with the fact that it wont appeal to all, or many. Steven Soderbergh has crafted a very loyal and well-made biopic. One that demythologises, one that educates, one that excels and ensues Walter Salle's soul-searching Che preface: The Motorcycle Diaries.

From seven-ten to half-past midnight (with a 30 minute intermission) I sat through probably the toughest wait I've had in a while, and that includes a back-to-back transcontinental with a transatlantic flight in coach. Che Parts 1 and 2 are the same crammed into cattle-space with people you don't know combined with nothing-to-do experience you get flying coach from LA to NY. Only you can't just drink and go to sleep, read, or watch another film. This was the film. I like both Soderbergh and Benicio del Toro, so I wanted to sit through this, but it hurt. The acting was actually well done. The art direction, cinematography, and other elements were also well done. The visual and sound editing were really challenging. I don't feel it revealed anything we didn't already know about the life of Che, his role in the Cuban revolution, or the botched Bolivian one. It might have been trying to do an unadorned, straight portrayal of his life and the history, but it wasn't really a documentary and I wasn't entertained either. I felt so abused and robbed when I walked out of there I had to sit down and write this just to get over it. There was no sound track. I can accept that maybe this was a creative choice for making the film, but having to roll through credits twice, also without sound both times, seems as if they didn't actually expect anyone to be able to sit through credits after such a long wait for the film to just end. The theater I go to has a bar and it's a good thing I didn't have a drink beforehand otherwise it would have been impossible to make it through both parts without passing out or going to the restroom. What I should have done is down a Red Bull at intermission instead of lying to myself that Part 2 would be better. It was the same shaky, hand-held, gunfire in the field shots combined with sparse dialogue and no music. I understand the purity of just telling a story through visuals, but did this have to go on more than five hours in two separate films? I'd like to believe that Soderbergh had some kind of grudge against the studio and wanted to punish them in some way by shooting as much film, taking the longest time, and making full use of any final edit privileges he might have had, because I can't figure out another justification for this outrageously indulgent suck of time.

oops - I'm home already. I guess I was still sleeping through the ride home. OK, there was some good story information buried in the 4 hr 17 min ordeal I just went through (I was subjected to parts 1 and 2 in the same night), but by the end, I was thinking - just let him die, already. I've never seen longer periods of rambling images, and scenes that could have been half as long, and twice as effective. Three hours MIGHT have been tolerable. By the last hour, I was at the back of the theater doing stretches, and ended up missing some of the subtitles. Phew! The only saving grace was Benecio del Toro, who I apparently could watch forever and not feel the need to leave the theater.

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

Che Part One is an interesting and enjoyable film about the Cuban revolution, that focuses on the infamous Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. The story follows Che from his first meeting with Castro, to the climactic battle in Santa Clara, where Batista's army makes its last stand against the revolutionaries. This battle scene is filmed guerrilla warfare style in an urban environment, with short bursts of action followed by silence as soldiers move into newer/better positions. It all feels very tense and realistic, which makes a nice change to the shaky cam explosion fests that we're used to. This style works well throughout the rest of the film but swaps the city for the jungle. The flash forward scenes where Che is interviewed and later addresses the United Nations, help to give the story, and Che, more depth and background, whilst giving us insights into his personality and ideology. Along with the battles, these scenes also help to break up the slower parts of the film. Cinematography in the film is good and occasionally great, with some stunning shots of the Cuban landscape. The black and white scenes are also well shot, without feeling out of place. On another positive note, Benicio Del Toro does an excellent job portraying Che. He is understated and believable as the man who wanted to change people's lives, focused on doing what he thought was right. Unfortunately though, I had trouble caring about or even remembering most of the other characters, as dialogue between them isn't particular memorable. Sometimes you almost feel like you're watching a documentary that's trying to teach rather than entertain and this can start to wear, especially when you're reading subtitles. Che may also be shown in a better light than some would like, although honestly I feel the film is fairly accurate in its portrayal of the man and the history. I'd definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in Che or the events in Cuba. Even if at times things do get a little slow, it's still a rewarding and informative experience.

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

Nothing quite like getting your teeth into an epic is there? Sitting back and letting yourself get immersed into a struggle, a journey, in this case the Cuban revolution that has become such a cause celebre for many since the 1950s. By the time I left the cinema I sadly felt as though the epic had been squashed down into an easily swallowed period piece with all the epic grandeur of a Dan Brown novel. The problem with Che Part One is that it doesn't say anything particularly interesting or contain any memorable moments. There is lots and lots of shooting which is actually fairly sanitised (this is certainly no Saving Private Ryan), there is some mistreatment of people who are then avenged and there are lots of shots of Benicio del Toro looking quite idealistic and cool. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing specifically wrong with this film. It portrays a fairly accurate (if, as I said, sanitised) picture of the March on Santa Clara and the victory of Castro's rebels. However much in the same way as the kind of perpetually running museum film that you can dip in and out of it is largely uninspiring and leaves you feeling quite detached. The problem is not the direction or the acting which does manage to transport you into the heart of a Civil War ravaged Cuba. It is the fact that we learn next to nothing about Cuba, Che himself or the goals of the revolutionaries. We learn nothing of why the Batista regime was so bad that people wanted to overthrow it. Which means that this simply stands alone as a war film where there are lots of explosions, lots of running around and some scenes of people celebrating in the streets. While I understand from reports that Che Part Two is rather different I think that nevertheless the slight blandness of Che Part One means that, though it looks good, it does feel like a rather wasted opportunity.

Che: Part One felt very complete and fulfilling. I found myself looking at Ernesto "Che" Guevara as a very well rounded person. Not as an ideological self fulfilling man but as an articulate man with thought out rational decisions as well as a man with many useful talents. The acting of the cast all around was very good but Benicio Del Toro took the movie by storm but he did this in a very subtle way. His performance displayed how Che's spirit was able to superseded the hardships faced in the Cuban Revolution. It did not display any brutality or recklessness but a devotion to a cause. Del Toro's perforations was that worthy of an Oscar nomination but I don't think Che Guervara cared to much about awards. The directing by Steven Soderbergh was visually stunning at times with much of the scenes shot in the forest. What kept the movie upbeat though were the scenes of Che in New York giving interviews and addressing the U.N. It added an extra layer to the film allowing you to see another side of Che. The side in which he shows his political and speaking abilities. The writing was very good with the dialog always keeping you engrossed. The music, though not much of it, was very good and stayed within rhythm of the rest of the film. Overall the film succeeds in showing Che as a well rounded man never developing into oversimplified or unnecessarily complex portrayal of a man. The movie was very accurate and refused to take on a role of being inspiring or Hollywoodish which I enjoyed. The only problem with the film I had was that it seems to have a little too much of a feel of a war film rather than a biopic. Still I highly recommend this film.