Review: Che
Knowing only the public opinion about the man this biopic treated, I was highly interested in what it was all about. While Che does not explain the entirety of the life of Ernesto Guevara, it does portray the man’s major role in moments of Latin American history fairly well. Though meant to be watched whole, Che is split into two parts each with their own focus: Che: The Argentine captures the Cuban Revolution and Che: The Guerilla contains the attempted liberation of Bolivia. If you consider The Motorcycle Diaries as the predecessor to Che, then Guevara’s life is captured in a trilogy. Yet another director and a different company made the Motorcycle Diaries. Interestingly, where the Motorcycle Diaries ends, Che part one begins.
With intention, Che: The Argentine was filmmed in a way that does not make Che the focus of the film, rather it follows the events of the Cuban Revolution with Che as a member of the revolutionaries. This was a deliberate choice by the director who, following Che’s own beliefs in collectivism and egalitarianism, avoided showing Benicio Del Toro in close-ups. In Che: The Guerilla, which follows Che’s failed attempt to foment a revolution in Bolivia, the film routinely shot Che in close-ups and as the centre of the film. By this method, his Bolivian exploits were presented as something he was doing on his own. In Cuba he was only a member of a larger group of revolutionaries, in Bolivia, he was the main agent of change. I thought this was an excellent treatment of the character and worked favourably for the films.
What could I have expected from a movie about a man that is described as being the most complete human being of the twentieth-century? Prior to and henceforth from watching the films, I have heard both sides of the argument over Che Guevara. Some consider him the patron saint of revolutions, others condemn him as a murderer. All three films show Che as a sympathetic hero who only desires to change the troubles of South America. If, like me, you are not well versed in the arguments or the literature surrounding this man’s life, you would be influenced by these films to consider him a positive historical figure. In The Argentine Che is a portrayed as a leader of the military, as a doctor for poor Cuban villages, as an intellectual, and as an ambassador for Cuba. There are many battle scenes, and some of the dirt of the revolution is shown, but overall Che is shown to have successfully helped Cuba free itself from one form of dictatorship. The Guerilla follows closely with Che’s experience in Bolivia. His asthma attacks, the difficulty in convincing the peasants to support his revolution, the inability to unite the political factions against the supposed dictatorship, are all examples of the decline of Che. These movies did a good job of chronicling the history of Che Guevara in Cuba and Bolivia, but they consciously left out some serious events that would have splintered the audiences’ opinon on the main character. For example, after the Cuban Revolution succeeded Che conducted terrible purges against opposing politicians, militarists and peasants. If the director at least mentioned this event it would have added a second voice to the whole movie.
Approaching these films with little information about the man or the history, you could safely enjoy these movies as entertainment. And they are great entertainment. Benicio Del Toro plays a fantastic Che Guevara. Both films are beautifully shot and well structured. Once you start to dig deeper and learn more, however, you might look at them in a different way. You may celebrate them, or you may criticize them. As far as films go these are worth celebrating. As for the content, only you can be the judge of that.
Rating: 
For how influential and culturaly relevant Che is, I am shamefully uninformed about his life. For that reason I have been meaning to watch these three films (including Motorcycle Diaries) for quite some time. From the skewed representation the films have however, it looks like I will have to do some reading, and reading isn’t very fun.
I suppose the director could only show so much in two hours of each part, but to have left out, if even by text at the end, the mass executions Che oversaw at La Cabaña, earning him the name “Butcher of La Cabaña” by his detractors, sort of left out a lot. Unfortunately for you my friend, in this case reading is the only way to find answers. Film just wasn’t enough.
How can anyone defend this man? He murdered innocents. He would kill anyone who believed in freedom and liberty. It sickens me how the liberal media mourns this man here in America.