← Back to Reviews
in
Che: Part One (Steven Soderbergh, 2008)
You can never accuse Soderbergh of doing anything easy. Last year, he made a four-and-one-half hour epic, based on two autobigraphies of Che Guevara (played excellently by Benicio Del Toro), divided into two parts and released them well-knowing that he could never recoup the investment. Soderbergh also used a fractured storytelling approach which cuts back and forth in time and tone, changing from color to black-and-white, and often making it difficult for the film to gain any momentum or dramatic power. However, mostly due to Del Toro, the film does eventually prove worthy of the time and attention paid to it by the viewer. I have Part Two, but I haven't watched it yet, but I know that it's set in a different locale and uses different cinematic techniques, so we'll see about that one. But Part One is reminiscent at times of Oliver Stone's JFK, Salvador and Platoon, as well as biographies of seemingly-radical figures such as Spike Lee's Malcolm X. Most of the film leaves the storytelling to the mid 1950s-mid 1960s, but there are a few times where the material seems to have been tweaked a bit to relate to our current political situations, involving both Cuba and Venezuela. Once again, I'll have to wait to see what appears in Part Two which is mostly set in Bolivia, but Part One is a somewhat difficult but rewarding watch. I just wish that there were a few less cigars doing some major acting, but that's a minor quibble. I know that Mrs. Darcy and Holden saw the film at the theatre, but did anybody else? You know who you are, you Del Toro lover.
You can never accuse Soderbergh of doing anything easy. Last year, he made a four-and-one-half hour epic, based on two autobigraphies of Che Guevara (played excellently by Benicio Del Toro), divided into two parts and released them well-knowing that he could never recoup the investment. Soderbergh also used a fractured storytelling approach which cuts back and forth in time and tone, changing from color to black-and-white, and often making it difficult for the film to gain any momentum or dramatic power. However, mostly due to Del Toro, the film does eventually prove worthy of the time and attention paid to it by the viewer. I have Part Two, but I haven't watched it yet, but I know that it's set in a different locale and uses different cinematic techniques, so we'll see about that one. But Part One is reminiscent at times of Oliver Stone's JFK, Salvador and Platoon, as well as biographies of seemingly-radical figures such as Spike Lee's Malcolm X. Most of the film leaves the storytelling to the mid 1950s-mid 1960s, but there are a few times where the material seems to have been tweaked a bit to relate to our current political situations, involving both Cuba and Venezuela. Once again, I'll have to wait to see what appears in Part Two which is mostly set in Bolivia, but Part One is a somewhat difficult but rewarding watch. I just wish that there were a few less cigars doing some major acting, but that's a minor quibble. I know that Mrs. Darcy and Holden saw the film at the theatre, but did anybody else? You know who you are, you Del Toro lover.