Che!

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/

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?

Richard Fleischer's biopic about the eponymous Argentinian revolutionary has been widely known as one of the biggest embarrassments in cinema history. Watching "Che!", I didn't interpret it as a particularly bad movie. What it is: extremely corny. As I understand it, the movie is historically accurate. It's just that, aside from all the overacting, Omar Sharif as Che Guevara looks silly and Jack Palance as Fidel Castro always looks as if he's about to fall asleep. In fact, Fidel adopts Che's comments as his own, just like Daffy Duck does with Porky Pig's suggestion in "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century"! There has been news of Steven Soderbergh's upcoming biopic about Che Guevara, with Benicio Del Toro playing the role. It'll probably come out better than this one. This mostly functions as an example of a movie intended as serious coming out really funny. Worth seeing for that.

Also starring Cesare Danova (Mayor Carmine in "Animal House"), Woody Strode and Barbara Luna.

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.

This film was almost hooted into oblivion by the critics at the time of its release, so when I saw it on one of the Cinemax channels last night, I was surprised that it wasn't much worse. A few months ago I saw the highly acclaimed docudrama on Fidel on Showtime, and this film, while not as good as the Showtime drama, is not all that much worse either.

First the bad stuff. Jack Palance's portrayal of Fidel Castro must rank as one of the worst performances ever to appear on screen. During the first half of the film, he spends most of the time rolling a lit cigar around in his mouth and making weird facial grimaces, most of which he seems to have forgotten by the second half. Moreover, he makes Castro come across as a dim-witted doofus who is always helped to see the right course by the brilliant Che, rather than portraying Castro as the brilliant strategist and tactician he was. Secondly, although the film is in English, much of the spoken dialogue sounds like a dubbed movie. Maybe that's because one of the principal supporting actors is Italian.

That having been said, the film's history is, quite surprisingly, fairly accurate. It accurately depicts how Castro's forces were almost completely wiped out after the arrival from Mexico, and Castro was left with a force numbering less than twenty. Nevertheless, he survives and gradually wins the support of the peasants, so that eventually he has a guerrilla force numbering in the thousands. The fact that Guevara was unable to pull off the same feat in Bolivia, due largely to his own megalomania that prevented his listening to the Bolivian peasants, is accurately portrayed as well. This isn't available on video and isn't likely to come to a theater, so you can probably see it only on cable. If it comes along, it's worth a watch.