ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Degree7 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".

dierregi This first part of Ernesto Guevara biopic can be watched on its own. In fact, having watched also the second part, I must confess I had rather stopped with the first installment.Ernesto Guevara led a very intense and adventurous life. There is an excellent film about his formative years (The motorcycle diaries) which details how Guevara got to know about the miseries of the South American continent and decided to do something to re-dress the injustice.In this movie we lack any information about the idealistic background that moved Guevara. The style is very documentary-like and detached. In fact, even too detached. The main part of film is in colour, showing Guevara reaching Cuba in 1956 with Fidel Castro and the other revolutionaries and fighting their way to Havana. Also in colour is a short flashback in Mexico, with Guevara and Castro meeting the first time.Interspersed in the movie are grainy, black & white scenes about Guevara 1964 trip to the UN. These scenes are very annoying for those who watch the film in the original version (in Spanish), and understand both English and Spanish. Guevara is interviewed in English, all questions are translated in English and he answers in Spanish, making the whole process unbearably dull.Sadly, also the long guerrilla part of the movie is equally unexciting. Obviously, even guerrilla fighters must have some dull moments in their life, but here it looks like they have nothing else. Given the documentary-style, we are shown countless scenes of the long march through the island, the most (and only) dramatic moment being the taking of Santa Clara.Considering the events depicted the major political overturning and the years of fighting spent by Guevara and his companions, the result is sorely lacking drama and tension. Benicio Del Toro does a good job, playing the part without any fanatic idealism, but rather with a human, melancholic side. Unfortunately he is not enough to make the movie raise from fake documentary into compelling biopic Disappointing.P.S. big mistake morphing what is perhaps the most famous photo of Guevara into a quasi-resemblance with Del Toro...

badajoz-1 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!

generationofswine To tell the truth, I was excited about the prospects of a Che movie, in this day & age I'd say that it's needed. Che certainly has a stigma behind him that the close minded among us like to tout the loudest, "he's a communist, he's a monster," so it was nice to be able to walk into a film about Che that I knew was not going to damn him with a strong political agenda.And I am a historian, I'll sit through long drawn out trash just to see Rome on the big screen. I've studied Che, don't worry, I understand it's Hollywood, I don't judge a movie based on how historically accurate it is or isn't, I don't necessarily even want to see a film that sacrifices entertainment for accuracy. I often have dull & boring as a product of my profession.That being said, I'd like to know, historically, how someone could make a movie about Che that's, well, boring. Not even the history books about the man managed to make him this boring. He was like a Latino Ethan Hunt, a master of disguise, highly skilled in the dark arts of espionage, he was the man that literally wrote the book on guerrilla warfare, & that's not here at all, at least not in any entertaining way.See this film to change your global views, not to be entertained. From what I know about Che, I was expecting...I don't know...something more James Bond & less, well, less dull.