ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Michael Ledo Having seen the movie, "Fidel," we get a totally different Che, than the one in that movie. In "Fidel," Castro is a kindly ideological revolutionary while Che is his ruthless hatchet man, killing anyone one comes in his way, and forcing Castro to accept communism. In this movie Castro is the mean killer. Che is the likable overly compassionate doctor, trying to bring a revolution to Cuba while fighting his asthma and randomly taking bullets because apparently he hasn't read his own book on warfare.The actor who played Fidel looked nothing like him, well he did have a beard. The movie starts out in Bolivia 1967 with Che being captured near the end of his life. We then flashback to the revolution and pre-revolution times. The next thing we know Che is sitting in a chair smoking a cigar giving an interview to some white bread chick in Havana, post revolution. During the interview we flashback again to the revolution. During the flashbacks, we have duel scenes when the movie flashes ahead slightly during the flashback, such as when he meets a girl, he is talking to her for the first time, and then it flashes ahead to when they make love, then back to the conversation, ahead to loving making etc. OW! my head hurts, make them stop! Please stop editing films on acid!The movie is pro Che, or somewhat anti-American. One of my right wing friends would chide my overly left wing views by saying "Che was a weenie." This movie portrays Che as that weenie, someone who brings revolution in spite of himself.Not worth the view, even to a revolutionary.

swayner Great story to be told, but this effort was, as previous comments noted, amateurish. The most interesting thing about the production (?): What may be a "goof" in this home movie was after Che and a couple of others manage to survive the Cuban landing and fight their way through mountains, he appears to sporting a very nice wristwatch while performing doctor duties with one of the locals. Hopefully it's a Rolex. Anybody see "The Party" with Peter Sellars? Opening is a movie shot of a 19th century Indian skirmish in which he's wearing a 1960's wristwatch. The director loses it after having to shoot another take on account of this slip. Apparently in Che they didn't have the time.

acsenray This film is embarrassingly bad. I don't blame Noriega; he has proved his acting ability in other films. However, the script and the direction for this movie are absolutely terrible. Every line is spoken as if by by a kid in a sixth-grade school production.The dialogue is nothing more than exposition -- "We need to take the fort. It will give us a moral victory." "Let's go." "A large number of enemy soldiers are coming." "If you are lying, you will b punished." "I saw them." "Where are they?" There is absolutely no drama, no insight, nothing. Just a flat display of a series of events, almost like an old-fashioned "life of the saints" type performance.The whole movie reminded me of a scene in Woody Allen's "Life and Death," in which a doctor, a soldier, and a prostitute were assigned to present a dramatic performance illustrating the dangers of venereal diseases -- stiff, amateurish, non-acting

ekestler Just finished watching this film. Overall I think this deserves a rental, but not a purchase.First off Eduardo Noriega does a good job portraying Che. The cinematography is quite nice to look at, as well as Paula Garcés is very pretty to look at as well.As much as I really wanted to like this as a film I just didn't. The way the story is told seems very sporadic, and jumps all over the place. The shoot-outs never feel suspenseful, and the usage of the stock footage seems like it was used a a style thing, instead of using it to help tell the story.Also, the musical score. Some films use a piece of music several times throughout a film and it just works. This film however doesn't. It seems like he just re-used the same piece of music because he didn't have any other stuff to work with. It also feels like he is trying too hard to make you feel a certain emotion when there just isn't enough time spent to really understand fully what is going.Perhaps I am being a bit harsh, but I was left disappointed after the film ended. I should also mention I got so bored the first time I watched it that I had to turn it off.Not a bad effort, but not great either. Let's hope the Del Toro version will be more detailed, and feel more like a film and not a documentary.