Stream it now Che: Part Two 2008

 

Keeping the slow and frustrating pace which marred part 1, this is almost exactly the same story told in part 1 but set in a different country, namely Che gathering and leading a guerrilla army to fight on the behalf of the oppressed. In Soderbergh's defence he could only work with the details from the diaries the film was based on, but you can't help feel there is a better story to be told here somewhere, Benicio Del Toro as Che isn't given enough to do, while he's in the majority of the scenes we know little more about him in the last frame than we do in the first. In the end this plays like reading a school text book, the events are told clearly and concisely but with no heart or feeling.

Good historic film

(****): Thumbs Up

I might have actually liked this more than the first part. A great film.

----------------PART 1 The Argentine----------------------
SUMMARY: Hindsight is what I went to see Che: Parts 1+2 for, but Soderbergh robbed me of any of it., 7 November 2009

Author: lizziebeth-1 from Sydney, Australia


*** This comment may contain spoilers ***


Don't be surprised if you find Part1 confusing; I certainly did.

Obviously, a Spanish-only film will be unappealing to anyone uncomfortable with subtitles, while other-language speakers will rely too heavily on those subtitles and be forced to miss any continuity in Soderbergh's disruptive time-shifts.

Part1 is particularly offensive at this, because he leaves out far more story than he includes, and because he contextualizes events so poorly while intruding his "edgy" style of flashbacks and flash-forwards. Viewers are left like Eddie Murphy listening to James Brown records: "What the F did I just miss? -Sabbadie-dubba!"(said James Brown).

Prior to the final release's English voice-overs recorded by Benicio (helpfully less irritating than dubbing), Part1 presented unnecessary logic impediments, such as the fearfully episodic nature of Soderbergh's scenes, the lack of preamble/audience preparation for things that are about to happen, while the chosen events are so minimally and clearly Latino-centrically portrayed, that we really do feel like Eddie Murphy.

The real problem with his Latino-centrism is that once we get used to it, we really become distrustful of the veracity and insights of the future political fallout that the English-spoken interviews and flash-forwards represent. That is, Soderbergh WASTES any possible context with his disruptive and alienated English-speakers, yet they are the only real help on offer.

The rest of Che hacking jungle and battling ill-discipline amongst his "troops" just makes for way too much cinema verite (no perspective) as it remains an insufficient exploration of Che's reasons, or of the political effect he was having whereever he went.

There is also--and this is the big giveaway about who this epic was made for--no hindsight critique of either Che himself, nor crucially of the manipulated peasants who eventually sell him out to their own government.

Soderbergh BURIES HIS LEAD because he's weak on narrative. I wonder if he was deliberately chosen for this project by some backer who knew this. It's been 44yrs; hindsight is sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director robbed me of that.

The Sydney Film Festival version sported even more irritants, since eradicated:

A) way too many blue filter shots (poor man's day-for-night, last used in B-grade Westerns);

B) illegible, jittery subtitles yanked off too quickly, supposedly "compensating" for his unremitting Spanish; and

C) no helpful Benicio voice-over at all.

Both early and final release versions still have no opening credits so the audience has no idea whom/what to expect--making it such a triumph when we recognize the never (EVER) credited Matt Damon as a young priest shot mid-distance; and Soderbergh's nom-de-plume photographer credit of "Peter Andrews".

So what's with all this HIDING, Mr Soderbergh? Could it be that he's abashed by his altering style, feeling a little clumsy, perhaps? Jeezus, he reminds me of Billy the talented-but-crazy indie director on "Entourage" who made his career-killing stinker biopic on the show about...wait for it...Pablo Escobar. Pretty close.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian(03-Oct-2009) correctly observed that Part1 is "uneven"(and HOW), while Part2 "goes rapidly downhill" from there, charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia "in excruciating detail".

For me, there's only 3 good things in Che Part1:

i) Benicio DelToro's casting, and his marvelous PRIMARY makeup job--but NOT his bizarre, integrally terrible graying wriggler in Pt2--Benicio's leanness and beard are astonishingly close to some rather unflattering photos of Che;

ii) Seeing Che soberly and meaningfully address the UN in 1964 as Cuba's post-revolutionary Minister of Economics; and

iii) the scope of the battle of Santa Clara (near the end of Pt1).

That's it.

So I concur wholeheartedly with David Stratton that "(Soderbergh's) pace is deliberately slow, characterizations kept to a minimum" (as if the director didn't know what these should be used for); "the action, such as it is, plods along withOUT a visible dramatic arc, and Pt2 (in Bolivia) especially...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".

Turgid, Mr Soderbergh, turgid.

The director's only defense can be that he didn't make this movie for us living in the non-Cuban/non-Bolivian sectors of the planet. No, he must think we don't/shouldn't need this. Instead, his awful anti-movie had to just pretend to NOT be boring cinema verite just so the remaining illiterate Latino peasants of the world would go see it. He must be hoping they might finally feel satisfied that he finally gave them the unadorned, unexpurgated truth about how/why Che was so expeditiously killed in Bolivia.

I just hope they liked it.(4/10)


---------------------PART 2 The Guerilla---------------------

SUMMARY: Not so much Lost in La Mancha as merely Dead in Bolivia....OR...Soderbergh reinvents himself as Borat of Bolivia, 16 November 2009

*** This comment does contain spoilers ***


Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.

It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.

None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole".

Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.

Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (digital HD storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life!

For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by

1. never providing most of Che's story;

2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition;

3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events;

4. barely developing an idea, or a character;

5. remaining claustrophobically episodic;

6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive time-shifts;

7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and

8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success!

Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.

The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.

Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.

Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demi

----------------PART 1 The Argentine----------------------
SUMMARY: Hindsight is what I went to see Che: Parts 1+2 for, but Soderbergh robbed me of any of it., 7 November 2009

Author: lizziebeth-1 from Sydney, Australia


*** This comment may contain spoilers ***


Don't be surprised if you find Part1 confusing; I certainly did.

Obviously, a Spanish-only film will be unappealing to anyone uncomfortable with subtitles, while other-language speakers will rely too heavily on those subtitles and be forced to miss any continuity in Soderbergh's disruptive time-shifts.

Part1 is particularly offensive at this, because he leaves out far more story than he includes, and because he contextualizes events so poorly while intruding his "edgy" style of flashbacks and flash-forwards. Viewers are left like Eddie Murphy listening to James Brown records: "What the F did I just miss? -Sabbadie-dubba!"(said James Brown).

Prior to the final release's English voice-overs recorded by Benicio (helpfully less irritating than dubbing), Part1 presented unnecessary logic impediments, such as the fearfully episodic nature of Soderbergh's scenes, the lack of preamble/audience preparation for things that are about to happen, while the chosen events are so minimally and clearly Latino-centrically portrayed, that we really do feel like Eddie Murphy.

The real problem with his Latino-centrism is that once we get used to it, we really become distrustful of the veracity and insights of the future political fallout that the English-spoken interviews and flash-forwards represent. That is, Soderbergh WASTES any possible context with his disruptive and alienated English-speakers, yet they are the only real help on offer.

The rest of Che hacking jungle and battling ill-discipline amongst his "troops" just makes for way too much cinema verite (no perspective) as it remains an insufficient exploration of Che's reasons, or of the political effect he was having whereever he went.

There is also--and this is the big giveaway about who this epic was made for--no hindsight critique of either Che himself, nor crucially of the manipulated peasants who eventually sell him out to their own government.

Soderbergh BURIES HIS LEAD because he's weak on narrative. I wonder if he was deliberately chosen for this project by some backer who knew this. It's been 44yrs; hindsight is sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director robbed me of that.

The Sydney Film Festival version sported even more irritants, since eradicated:

A) way too many blue filter shots (poor man's day-for-night, last used in B-grade Westerns);

B) illegible, jittery subtitles yanked off too quickly, supposedly "compensating" for his unremitting Spanish; and

C) no helpful Benicio voice-over at all.

Both early and final release versions still have no opening credits so the audience has no idea whom/what to expect--making it such a triumph when we recognize the never (EVER) credited Matt Damon as a young priest shot mid-distance; and Soderbergh's nom-de-plume photographer credit of "Peter Andrews".

So what's with all this HIDING, Mr Soderbergh? Could it be that he's abashed by his altering style, feeling a little clumsy, perhaps? Jeezus, he reminds me of Billy the talented-but-crazy indie director on "Entourage" who made his career-killing stinker biopic on the show about...wait for it...Pablo Escobar. Pretty close.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian(03-Oct-2009) correctly observed that Part1 is "uneven"(and HOW), while Part2 "goes rapidly downhill" from there, charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia "in excruciating detail".

For me, there's only 3 good things in Che Part1:

i) Benicio DelToro's casting, and his marvelous PRIMARY makeup job--but NOT his bizarre, integrally terrible graying wriggler in Pt2--Benicio's leanness and beard are astonishingly close to some rather unflattering photos of Che;

ii) Seeing Che soberly and meaningfully address the UN in 1964 as Cuba's post-revolutionary Minister of Economics; and

iii) the scope of the battle of Santa Clara (near the end of Pt1).

That's it.

So I concur wholeheartedly with David Stratton that "(Soderbergh's) pace is deliberately slow, characterizations kept to a minimum" (as if the director didn't know what these should be used for); "the action, such as it is, plods along withOUT a visible dramatic arc, and Pt2 (in Bolivia) especially...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".

Turgid, Mr Soderbergh, turgid.

The director's only defense can be that he didn't make this movie for us living in the non-Cuban/non-Bolivian sectors of the planet. No, he must think we don't/shouldn't need this. Instead, his awful anti-movie had to just pretend to NOT be boring cinema verite just so the remaining illiterate Latino peasants of the world would go see it. He must be hoping they might finally feel satisfied that he finally gave them the unadorned, unexpurgated truth about how/why Che was so expeditiously killed in Bolivia.

I just hope they liked it.(4/10)


---------------------PART 2 The Guerilla---------------------

SUMMARY: Not so much Lost in La Mancha as merely Dead in Bolivia....OR...Soderbergh reinvents himself as Borat of Bolivia, 16 November 2009

*** This comment does contain spoilers ***


Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.

It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.

None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole".

Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.

Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (digital HD storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life!

For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by

1. never providing most of Che's story;

2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition;

3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events;

4. barely developing an idea, or a character;

5. remaining claustrophobically episodic;

6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive time-shifts;

7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and

8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success!

Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.

The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.

Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.

Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demi

In Part Two I found the earlier held uneasiness at viewing the first to be painfully repeated in such a way that I ceased to care about its subject and was waiting for it to finally end.

While it may be an accurate depiction of guerrilla warfare, with its intermittent action, overwhelming anxiety, and troubled communication amongst fellows, it perhaps does its job too well in conveying the pain of the struggle and the boredom of its interludes.

In the end I watch films to be entertained on some level, whether it be dumb fun or intellectually engaging in its various forms, and I just was not entertained by it.

I make no value judgment of Che. I do not say this isn't a well crafted film. I just did not happen to enjoy this episode.

Che part 1 was more about what Che's plans were and then Che part 2 was more to do with the fighting and how the guerillas survived in the jungle, and I think was more of a step up from the first.
Very good sequel.
4/5

If the first Che film was a laborious exercise in preaching to the converted, Che: Part Two is a laborious way of sending people to sleep. The second part of Steven Soderbergh's dual biopic is dull beyond measure, either removing or fatally compromising the strengths of the first film whilst retaining said film's formulaic dialogue and poor direction.

Once again, Benicio Del Toro is brilliant in the title role, truly inhabiting his character and carrying off his scenes with a growing combination of pathos and denial. But one of the film's first flaws is that Che is in it for much less than he should be, certainly considering the title. While the first film had as its backbone the encounters between Che and Fidel Castro, Castro is not in this segment at all, save for a brief speech at the beginning explaining why Che has left Cuba. While this is historically accurate, insofar as Castro had no direct involvement in Bolivia, this means that there is no-one for Che to bounce off on screen. To find chemistry, the film therefore has to turn to the struggles of the individual soldiers, but these are so devoid of personality or distinctive features that there is no chemistry to be found. One might almost think that the characters had wandered off the set of Schindler's List, they are that dull.

Soderbergh's direction remains mediocre in this second part. In one scene in the Bolivian jungle, Che's guerrillas are marching in single file from one training camp to another. But rather than attempt a close-up of their faces to show their personal hardship, Soderbergh's camera is focussed on a branch with leaves on it, hanging inscrutably in front of the lens with no explanation offered. He also has a problem deciding upon whose perspective the film is from. For most of it, the film is shot in third-person, i.e. the camera is an observer to Che's actions. But when Che is executed, the film suddenly becomes first-person, going to Che's POV as he falls to the ground and slowly breathes his last. It makes no rational sense.

On top of this, the script remains as dull as before, only now we have to put up with various lines which refer to Che's lingering popularity and destroy the film's internal credibility. In one scene in the second half, a soldier asks Che to pose for a photograph, saying to him "I'm sure a lot of people would like a photograph of you". That is a genuine face-palm moment, since it destroys both the audience's patience and all of Soderbergh's serious intentions. It's almost as though he had struggled for three hours to make a taut, self-contained film without pandering to Che's supporters, and then threw up his hands, gave up and went down the road to complete flippancy.

Just like its predecessor, Che: Part Two can't make up its mind as to what its perspective is or intentions are. It's more boring than the first part, just as predictable, and would have been completely forgettable had it not been for the limited presence of Del Toro. Just like Kill Bill, Part 1 will never make sense until you have seen Part 2, but otherwise this film is little more than frustrating, un-compelling tosh.

The Gurilla is the antithesis of The Argentine. After the steady expanse of revolutionaries and the triumph at Santa Clara, part two relocates to Bolivia where it exists in a constant state of distress. All the glory that was packed on for the first two hours is slowly stripped off over the remainder of the film. There is an emotionally over-whelming sense of failure shadowing the Bolivia portion, while it is still presented in the same methodical style as the first half (the different aspect ratio is very effective). It's the necessary resolution, but unfortunately very depressing. Together, Che is an exceptional, un-biased historical portrait.

The best of the two parts.