Fidel

As Hemingway wrote, "A murderous tyranny pervades every village in the island". For the fool who wrote that Castro robbed Cuba of its true freedom, this was written before the popular revolution from within, not imposed from outside, which overthrew a regime so corrupt even the Mafia didn't have to break the law. Some Mafia moved to Miami, none of whom were African or mulatto. As portrayed, Batista's troops were fairly treated, as soldiers who joined because no other work was available and under corrupt officers who would rather be in the cities collecting their kickbacks. No wonder so many troops went over to the rebels! Too bad it lacked the antecedent showing Castro as the most popular politician in Cuba before the revolution -running for their Congress and hailed as a future President. Batista's 1952 coup wherein he seized power, dissolved Congress, and canceled elections rated less than a minute. Castro sued Batista for Illegal Succession! Flee Cuba? Much greater numbers flee Latin America, Mexico, Guatemala (where they have death squads) and even our Most Favored Trade partner China. They do it for economic opportunity. ONLY Cubans are allowed to remain if they make it ashore; sometimes employing people smugglers with no regard for life. U.S. Immigration grants a few hundred visas to Cubans annually, not the 20,000 and more we agreed to; Nonetheless arriving here illegally is OK. Anyone who has flown to Cuba has met Cubans aboard returning home, then seen no military presence there, and maybe noted that some Cuban cops don't even carry guns. Yes, I've been there a number of times. Don't like that? Stuff it, fool! What are fools and liars like Enrique afraid we'll see down there? Hmmm, maybe one is that they have multiple candidates for each office, need not be party members or millionaires to win, that 1/3 of the National Assembly are not party members. Ride in a cab in Cuba; you may well hear a Florida station selected on its radio. Bring T-shirts bearing logos of U.S. products, teams, and stars & stripes, even "U S Army". They make great gifts, are commonly worn, and no, fool, they don't disappear from the streets as they did in Chile.

This film was well done technically, although the bias was so prevalent toward posing Castro as a monster with a gentleman's intellect that it felt fictional to anyone who understands modern Cuban history, not necessarily even sypathizes with Castro.

So, one can put this film on top of the pile of disinformation concerning Cuba and Castro that has been building devotedly in Miami by the displaced Cuban business class who fled Cuba long ago.

Castro is a controversial figure that inspires ideas and debate, not two-dimensional character assassination. His greatest friend in the world is Gabriel Garcia Marquez afterall.

I noticed another reviewer said Castro was worse than Saddam. This should prove my point quite clearly.

Some TV productions of late have been fantastic, and many are duds. `¡Fidel!' is interesting for content but disappointing in production. Huggo Martin has good moments in the title role, but mostly he walks through the lines without imparting believability to them. Other cast members do the same. Of course, Fidel Castro is a fascinating character. Viewing this film does flesh out a Yankee's knowledge of his life. Yet, so much remains unanswered. The first segment portrays him as an idealistic leader of the justified overthrow of General Batista. His failures seem somehow related to lack of realistic planning, but he triumphs in the end at least in part by his reliance on subordinates. Then, the second segment takes us to the Castro government in power. Here, we see a megalomaniac who makes his own decisions regardless of reality or the opinions of others. He sells out his revolution out to the Soviets for no apparent reason other than his hate for the U. S. The regime becomes a disaster for the Cuban people. The film makes no effort to explain the abrupt change. Is it just the taste of power, or is there an illness within Castro's mind? Were we deceived at first? Castro and the Che Guevara character often throw allegations toward the CIA, but all of that is also left vague. A viewer interested in the subject here can only come away terribly unsatisfied.

I don't know who posted the comment before, but they obviously have no idea what the hell they're talking about. I am Cuban-American born and raised in the United States. I have been to Cuba and seen the utter poverty that the people live in. And even though Batista's government wasn't the best the people did not live in poverty like they do now. My grandfather died in the Bay of Pigs after being asked by Castro to join his regime. Just because he was a revolutionary doesn't mean his revolution was right. He killed many innocent people along the way to his political success and lied to all the people. How can someone be so ignorant to say long live Fidel when they obviously have no idea what they are talking about. The same goes for Che Guevara. I don't want to paint him as evil because in all reality he didn't know Castro was going to do what he did, but he did kill many innocent people in the name of "The Revolution." He was not the freedom fighter many "IGNORANT" people portray him to be, but a radical fanatic.

I am confused as to the role of Mr John Sacksteder from this site. My understanding was that he was supposed to summarise the film, whereas what he did was attack the film for not portraying Fidel Castro the way he feels he should be portrayed. I suggest that Mr Sacksteder sticks to summarising the piece of work before him rather than politically attacking the real life character. He may wish to be informed that Cuba is superior to the United Kingdom and the United States with regard to health, education and true democracy. All Cubans elect locally in the provinces local people from the province to represent their views at the General Council. Stick to being a film critic, Mr Sacksteder, rather than a mouthpiece for the anti Cuban lobby.