Che!

It was brave of the makers of this film to release it in 1969 when the U.S. war against Communist North Vietnam still raged. It does depict a **failed** attempt to foment revolution in the Third World and on balance it is a negative portrayal of a professional revolutionary. Given the times, any depiction of Guevara and Fidel Castro showing them as human was a bold move.

In the U.S. most publicity has been garnered by Castro's bitterest enemies (those wonderful folks who brought you the **Elian** affair). Fidel has his supporters here, and around the world, also. Many of them seem to have posted comments at this site. The title of this movie is "Che!", not "Fidel!". Naturally, Castro's role will be a secondary one, a decision Castro's supporters seem unable to forgive.

Everyone knows how the story ends, and that is where the movie starts, with Che Guevara's body being transported by helicopter down from the one-room schoolhouse where he was apparently executed after being wounded and captured by an elite unit of the Bolivian Army. It's a strikingly beautiful, almost elegiac shot with the slopes of the Andes stretching to the horizon in the background. The movie proceeds in a semi-documentary style, the story told in flashbacks by Guevara's old Comrades (and some old enemies). Some of the Comrades, visibly aged, give their interviews from prison cells.

While Guevara's early life in Argentina isn't depicted, there is a soundless, striking scene early in the film of Cuban women protesting the dictatorial Battista regime, only to be massacred by Cuban soldiers ("We heard you calling, Cuba and we came...") that well explains what motivated young Ernesto and other youths from Latin America's upper classes to join the Cuban revolutionaries. From there we trace Che's transformation from idealistic medical graduate to hardened guerrilla fighter--summed up in a moment when in the heat of battle he picks up a rifle and leaves his doctor's kit on the ground.

I also disagree with the many criticisms of the portrayal of Fidel Castro by Jack Palance. Palance's movie career was distinctly on the down slope when he accepted the part, but he always had **macho**. Here he captured the 6'4" Castro's dominating physical presence in a land of mostly short statured people.

It is a real pity that this motion picture has completely disappeared. There is not a commercial version of it available anywhere. In the future, perhaps after Omar Sharif has died, this portrait of one of the twentieth century's most charismatic figures will be recognized as the rare achievement it is.

How could this movie work as a factual representation or artistic vision?

1) it comes at the height of an anti-Castro obsession this country had and in many ways, still does (see, the US liked the harshly oppressive Cuban Government that preceded Castro, because we were allowed to profit from it's fascism). The very tagline of the movie shows one of it's main objectives - to paint Castro or at least his economic model as cartoonish villainy.

2) The Hollywood of the time not wanting to go to the risk of having actual Cubans or even people of closely related nationalities in the leading roles, we have very American leading men doing laughable Cuban impressions. Jack Palance as Fidel Castro? Thankfully this tradition has broken so we never saw Nicholas Cage as Malcom X.

3) Facts are of no concern to the filmmakers.

It does, however, have my recommendation - as a spectacle (it is an interesting one), but hardly as a decent piece of cinema.

Reason why this movie doesn't ever work out as a good one is because it really has no story to tell, or it at least seems that way, due to the entire way this movie got done and told.

Just don't watch this movie expect to learn anything. While watching this movie you'll have no idea what Che and his buddies are all fighting for and what they want to achieve, if you know nothing to little about Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution. Perhaps this can be blamed on the fact that this is an 1969 movie. Only 2 years after Che's death, so his story was still fresh back in the minds of the audiences at time. Therefore the movie perhaps felt no need to ever explain anything or to go into detail. But this movie was already much hated back in its day, so of course there is plenty more wrong with this movie.

Not only the story won't learn you anything but you also won't learn a thing about the person Che. Nothing in this movie justifies why he is globally regarded still such an icon, since the movie doesn't show anything great or heroic that he ever achieved and his personality in his movie is just very bland as well.

I can't really blame Omar Sharif for it though, while many other still seem to do so. In my opinion the blame should be put with its writing and directing. The story is already bad to begin with by the entire way it gets told makes it all the more worse.

What I also really didn't like about the storytelling was the random insertion of random people narration the events straight into the cam, as if this was a documentary. It comes across as incredibly cheap and lame, also since often the actors just aren't the greatest ones.

Even Jack Palance is real bad in his role. He is supposed to play Fidel Castro but instead he seems more like a caricature of him. And to be frank, he made Castro come across like an idiot. Perhaps this all was intentional though, for propaganda reasons.

The way this movie got shot and all of its action really reminded me of a "The A-Team" episode. I of course love "The A-Team" but this doesn't really seem like a compliment for a movie that tries to tell a serious, historically relevant story.

Perhaps the movie is not as bad to watch as its reputation might suggest but still it's truly really far from a good movie.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I saw this picture many years ago at its premiere and I never had a chance to see it again, but I would like to say something about it. First of all, Richard Fleischer is a distinguished director. See, for instance, "The Vikings", maybe the best adventure movie ever, or "Compulsion", a thrilling and alluring criminal drama. The problem with "Che!" is that it deals with too many facts and subjects in the while of 80 or 90 minutes. A lot of things are kept off-screen. Besides,the actors are completely unsuitable and the screenplay is poor. Characters and History itself is unfold in a distorted manner; so that, people who know a bit about Cuban Revolution fall disappointed. The movie grows better in the second half when Che tries to lead a guerrilla party in Bolivia. I still remember the last sequence showing a bedraggled and crippled Guevara, minutes before his decease, sitting on the floor of a schoolroom. A Bolivian Army officer calls in a village goat-herder , points towards wretched Guevara and asks the peasant : "Can't you see ? he has come here to free you!" The herder seems astonished, stares at the two men for a while and utters at last :"To free me ??? Since these people have shown up, shooting haphazardly, the goats have grown frightened , their milk dried and we have nothing to feed our children! So ... is this to free us ?" Next, Guevara raises and walks lamely towards the wall outside the door. Before him a firing squad is waiting. I don't know why, but I always fancy Guevara's last stand as depicted in this ill-fated flick.

If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).

But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!".

Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.

All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation....

Like I said, if you want a good laugh.

It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.

One star.

I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?