This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Having seen the movie, "Fidel," we get a totally different Che, than the one in that movie. In "Fidel," Castro is a kindly ideological revolutionary while Che is his ruthless hatchet man, killing anyone one comes in his way, and forcing Castro to accept communism. In this movie Castro is the mean killer. Che is the likable overly compassionate doctor, trying to bring a revolution to Cuba while fighting his asthma and randomly taking bullets because apparently he hasn't read his own book on warfare.The actor who played Fidel looked nothing like him, well he did have a beard. The movie starts out in Bolivia 1967 with Che being captured near the end of his life. We then flashback to the revolution and pre-revolution times. The next thing we know Che is sitting in a chair smoking a cigar giving an interview to some white bread chick in Havana, post revolution. During the interview we flashback again to the revolution. During the flashbacks, we have duel scenes when the movie flashes ahead slightly during the flashback, such as when he meets a girl, he is talking to her for the first time, and then it flashes ahead to when they make love, then back to the conversation, ahead to loving making etc. OW! my head hurts, make them stop! Please stop editing films on acid!The movie is pro Che, or somewhat anti-American. One of my right wing friends would chide my overly left wing views by saying "Che was a weenie." This movie portrays Che as that weenie, someone who brings revolution in spite of himself.Not worth the view, even to a revolutionary.

Great story to be told, but this effort was, as previous comments noted, amateurish. The most interesting thing about the production (?): What may be a "goof" in this home movie was after Che and a couple of others manage to survive the Cuban landing and fight their way through mountains, he appears to sporting a very nice wristwatch while performing doctor duties with one of the locals. Hopefully it's a Rolex. Anybody see "The Party" with Peter Sellars? Opening is a movie shot of a 19th century Indian skirmish in which he's wearing a 1960's wristwatch. The director loses it after having to shoot another take on account of this slip. Apparently in Che they didn't have the time.

CHE as written, directed, and produced by Josh Evans is an amateurish attempt to present the life of one of the more interesting revolutionary figures of the 20th century - Ernesto 'Che' Guevarade la Serna, the Argentinean physician who searched for meaning in his view of the world and joined Fidel Castro in overthrowing the dictatorship of Cuba. Despite the presence of the fine actor Eduardo Noriega in the title role and Sonia Braga in a cameo role as Celia, Che's mother, the film is plagued by simplistic dialogue, lack of momentum, choppy editing, and a large cast that would have been a bit more credible had the film been shot in Spanish - the language of all of the actors. Josh Evans provides no insights as to the person of Che or his motivations, but instead relies on the viewer's knowledge of the period to provide the missing lapses in story line. And while many may feel that Che was the more important force in the idealism of the revolution than the leader Fidel Castro, it is doubtful that Castro was as tepid and uninspiring a figure as actor Enrico Lo Verso and the pathetic script make him appear. With the 'other CHE' of Steven Soderbergh with Benicio Del Toro and a stellar cast due for release soon, it is not surprising that this amateurish film was released direct to DVD. The story and the actors deserve better treatment. Grady Harp

This film is embarrassingly bad. I don't blame Noriega; he has proved his acting ability in other films. However, the script and the direction for this movie are absolutely terrible. Every line is spoken as if by by a kid in a sixth-grade school production.The dialogue is nothing more than exposition -- "We need to take the fort. It will give us a moral victory." "Let's go." "A large number of enemy soldiers are coming." "If you are lying, you will b punished." "I saw them." "Where are they?" There is absolutely no drama, no insight, nothing. Just a flat display of a series of events, almost like an old-fashioned "life of the saints" type performance.The whole movie reminded me of a scene in Woody Allen's "Life and Death," in which a doctor, a soldier, and a prostitute were assigned to present a dramatic performance illustrating the dangers of venereal diseases -- stiff, amateurish, non-acting