An absolute waste of money

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This is a review of all 4.5 hours, for which I dutifully stayed awake. I'm a fan of director Soderbergh, and suppose there's a certain integrity to his evenhanded approach here to the polarizing Mr. Che, but to describe this picture (a la nytimes) as "emotionally distant" is putting it mildly. Despite a reference to executions, Mr. Che comes across as mostly a good, committed sort of guy (M.D.!) who tried to make the world a better place but had a very rough time in Part Two. Mr. Del Toro won Best Actor at Cannes for this. He looks Che-esque throughout and clearly he studied WWCD (What Would Che Do). But basically after 4.5 hours the viewer has sat through 2 guerilla wars and, in my case, not learned anything, certainly nothing about Mr. Che. Maybe there are other reasons to see it. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone.

I wouldn't expect a balanced film from Steven Soderbergh, but it's worth pointing out that this and its second part present a pretty idealized picture of Che and the Cuban revolution. Guerrilla warfare by definition often treads on some morally ambiguous territory and the picture of Che that's presented really makes him out to be the "good guy" in a revolution that definitely had some shades of gray. Lots of people associated with the Batista regime somehow ended up being executed, and Che never got his hands dirty? Hard to believe. That being said, the film looks very nice and Del Toro gives a great performance as Che.

Be warned: I broach him, the historical CHE figure with mucho respect. I can't say the same for the characterization for the same man in this film though the actor, Benicio del Torro gave a gutsy and possibly a memorable performance.Right from the get-go, director Steven Soderbergh set me at odds with his brand of directing. Then there's the even weightier matter of his much revisionist views of the period's history: Coups BAD but Revolucion by Armed Struggle is VERY GOOD. Of course, they the Revolucionarios had the blessing of the people every which way they killed. And why such foreplay with the (RED) map of Kuba? Was that even necessary? One might assume that theatergoers would at the very least have a rudimentary knowledge of the Cubanos' struggles from the 50s. For sure, I don't believe many folk under the age of 50 viewed this film. So spare us the leftist pictographs history lesson.Since my youth, I've always been interested in knowing more about this appropriately bearded, somewhat charismatic Argentine medical doctor who quickly became Fidel Castro's right, er, left hand man in the struggles before and after that led to the overthrow of the corrupt Batista regime in Kuba. Thereafter I saw the gruesome photos from Life magazine which revealed the murdered corpse of the now infamous named CHE after Columbian troops (I suspect CIA fed)tracked then cut down like a wild animal in those dense jungles where normally men such as Ernesto and other peoples'liberation fighters get their start, I needed to know the truth.Really, I wanted to believe that the film was based on the true writings of the humble but famous Ernesto man himself. Well, that youthful naivete and my perennial optimism went fleeting, fast. To wit, the moment I heard that banal-tone mesmerizing, though totally grating voice of the female U.S. State Department spokesperson and interviewer, I knew the leftist jig was at work (excuse the pun).Right there I knew that this was indeed CNN 'deja vu' all over again though in retrofit fashion and much redux.I gave up on learning more. Still I viewed with much suspicion maybe skepticism for two whole hours until PART One concluded. What a relief!NO, not even for a New York minute did I consider loading PART Two in the beckoning DVD orifice. I'm not a masochist, nor am I nuts. For sure I am not all enamored nor influenced by the Left's love-fest with this famous man, Ernesto Che Guevara. However I will give him this: Despite his ideology I believe he showed much compassion for the poor at anytime even in the heat of battle. For that quality alone, I believe his soul found redemption and his battle against injustice, finally won.So, the ideological debate no doubt continues and my earnest search to learn the 'real truth' behind or before the making of Ernesto CHE Guevara marches further afield into the future. Still, I know this: This film certainly shed little if any light on that subject. Oh yes, I almost forgot. The director and the imaginary, cellophane CHE depicted in PART One did remind us often of his and Ernesto's, but not so much Fidel's motivation to commit to armed struggle: U.S. hegemony, better enunciated as Yankee Imperialism was running amok in the lesser known 'Little Americas'. If allowed to go unchecked, why soon the entire world would behave like a domino factory, then fall and fail, subsequently beholden to American capitalism. Moreover, each country touched by U.S. expansionists soon becomes a slave colony working tirelessly to run up a deficit which totally suits the American masters. Fidel said so himself (in private).OK. I got it. Some of that may be true. However, I found it odd that the film's message failed and was too remiss to mention even once that the other side of the Post WWII cold fission/fusion process, the Russians,were doing much the same thing, although in covert and on the flip side of the globe. Surprise...!To be fair, CHE and I believe his big boss Castro did mumble the dirty word 'Stalinist' once though they did so en passant.Sigh, to hear their muted act of contrition was not worth two hours of my time. It is apropros then that none of them get cinematic nor even mine absolution.One Star it is and no more.Sorry...

This is a dramatised documentary based on Che's diaries. You hear the words, but know no more about Che at the end of Part One than he was quite a nice guy with a strong belief in revolution (His views are expounded at length). If I had not seen 'MotorCycle Diaries' I would not have known anything of his background, because there is little here but a detailed reconstruction of his visit to the US and the lead up the the Castro regime in Cuba. And in the extras on the DVD we get the disingenuous remarks of Soderbergh that all he was interested in doing was getting the film made - sorry, pal, but you have to make something that people want to watch, not just walk away!