Che
  • Summary: November 26, 1956; led by Fidel Castro , a band of 80 rebels sails to Cuba. Among these young rebels is Argentine physician, Marxist, soldier, Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Nation-less, strapped for resources and fueled only by determination, the group engages in swift, bloody battle to free the Cuban people from the corrupt dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Che and his soldiers wrestle the nation's resources and affection from Batista's grasp. Though considered a hero by some, Che becomes a hugely controversial figure. At the height of his fame and power, he disappears. Entering South America incognito, Che recruits another band of guerilla fighters in the harsh Bolivian jungles. They embark upon a mission to spark revolution throughout Latin America. (IFC Films) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 24
  2. Negative: 2 out of 24
  1. 91
    In both halves, Soderbergh emphasizes observation over ideology with an eye toward the mundane details of life on the front lines of a revolution.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    If the director has gone out of his way to avoid the usual Hollywood biopic conventions, he has also withheld any suggestion of why the charismatic doctor, fighter, diplomat, diarist and intellectual theorist became and remains such a legendary figure; if anything, Che seems diminished by the way he's portrayed here.
  3. 38
    You can't spell cliché without Che. And as I endured this mad dream directed - or perhaps committed - by Steven Soderbergh, I wondered where I'd seen it all before. The booted stomping through the greensward, the jungly target shooting? It's a remake of Woody Allen's "Bananas," right?

See all 24 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 16
  2. Negative: 1 out of 16
  1. Tyrone
    10
    Unparalleled in execution and unbiasedness , a truly un-hollywood picture uncompromising and meticulously realized. there will never be another like it or not . Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. Lizziebeth-1
    5
    My taste for this was ruined by 1. Higher (unmet) personal expectations about Che’s actual achievements 2. Nil editorialisation except date/time stamping 3. Nil emotional impact due to the inexorable drive to its fait accompli impoverished ending 4. Tricky structuring of the narrative 5. badly handled subtitling – although I usually like subtitles 6. my tiredness due to its duplicate length (in less than comfortable cinema seating at the Sydney Film Festival). As with Soderbergh’s Full Frontal(2002), which I watched again over the weekedn for comparison, this entry is qutie a-typical of him. The director makes no effort to stamp his creative mark on this bio flick, I don’t think, except that some scenes were incomprehensively shot with a blue filter, possibly as a poor-man’s process (day-for-night). Che Parts 1+2 are intentionally minimalist – my contention being that it’s TOO minimalist, because how do you account for the subject’s infamous, mythic international cultural status borne of nothing but his 1. incorruptability with the peasants, and 2. his grimy beard? Much worse, the audience was just as worn down - in a bad way - from all the grime and violent gun battles as was no doubt Che himself (but even that wasn’t properly brought out). While on an intellectual level I can admire that, it does not a movie make unless there is an emotional connection. But if this overdue film’s very nature is such that audience affect and emotion is deliberately worn away, so all we’re left with is the (blue) footage just flowing in front of our eyes, then what was the point after 50yrs ? Maybe the point is that there wasn’t one. Not even for Soderbergh. I’d even go as far as to say that while at the end Benicio’s Che was, of course, utterly unresponsive to his team’s and his own capture, and to his dream’s complete failure as he was executed, ironically that was the most impactful he had been for me during the whole preceding 4hrs. Now how was THAT worth a film ? Lizziebeth-1, IMDb Sydney, Australia. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. PaulS.
    2
    I did not pay 15 dollars to see 5 hours of a man trudging through harsh terrain. I get it; his life was hard. I learned little about the man or the history surrounding his life in five hours, which seems like an imposssibility but is true. I was angry with myself for staying in the theater for the whole film, but I kept thinking this movie might get better. This is an apic failure on Soderbergh's part. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes

See all 16 User Reviews

Trailers

Recommended Products

  1. Bubble Image
  2. The Limey Image
  3. The Informant! Image