Both films suffer from not providing enough background on the political and social situations in the countries (Cuba and Bolivia) at the time, and thus provides less reason to take an interest in the (attempts at) revolutions Che is taking part in.
That said, the first one was clearly the better film.
If Part I was about triumph, Che Part II acts as a cold shower. Not all Revolutions succeed, in fact I imagine most fail (*citation needed, as they say). Che's Bolivian campaign was a disaster, in part because his reputation preceded him, and the Americans ha had a giant boner about stopping Communism and put their oar in. The result is a more depressing and disjointed film than Part One, filled with comrades getting killed before we got to know them. You get the point pretty early and then suffer through more failure and death for the rest of the film. Though I think it's valuable as part of a diptych, audiences are unlikely to revisit this one as often as the Cuban story. I will say this, though: Bolivia provides some beautiful and interesting locations for military action. This is not a geography that's been overused in such pictures, like we might say of Puerto Rico-as-Cuba. Not without interest, but deeply depressing.
In my opinion, both are sleep-inducing documentaries of people walking through forests. At least in Part 1 this was alternated with speeches and interviews, so my preference goes out to that one. I would like to know how the common Cuban and Bolivian man feels about the film(s); how do they look at it? Does the pace and imagery speak to them differently?
I can understand that the film makers intended to show a realistic picture, not needlessly spicing it up. But that doesn't mean it should be dispassionate. I felt completely dissociated from everyone and everything. Even the moments where tension would be unavoidable were emotionally flat. And that comatose state rambles on for four long hours. My walk through marshlands this afternoon was far more enthralling.
I should add several positive remarks though. Del Toro plays a VERY believable Che and that deserves praise. The cinematography is flawless. And seeing things in their right context will help anyone obtain a more vivid picture of El Comandante's life/execution/surroundings, although that is of course the minimal requirement for a biographical film.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 8 of 8
kanoba
Both films suffer from not providing enough background on the political and social situations in the countries (Cuba and Bolivia) at the time, and thus provides less reason to take an interest in the (attempts at) revolutions Che is taking part in.That said, the first one was clearly the better film.
Siskoid
If Part I was about triumph, Che Part II acts as a cold shower. Not all Revolutions succeed, in fact I imagine most fail (*citation needed, as they say). Che's Bolivian campaign was a disaster, in part because his reputation preceded him, and the Americans ha had a giant boner about stopping Communism and put their oar in. The result is a more depressing and disjointed film than Part One, filled with comrades getting killed before we got to know them. You get the point pretty early and then suffer through more failure and death for the rest of the film. Though I think it's valuable as part of a diptych, audiences are unlikely to revisit this one as often as the Cuban story. I will say this, though: Bolivia provides some beautiful and interesting locations for military action. This is not a geography that's been overused in such pictures, like we might say of Puerto Rico-as-Cuba. Not without interest, but deeply depressing.Eddyspeeder
In my opinion, both are sleep-inducing documentaries of people walking through forests. At least in Part 1 this was alternated with speeches and interviews, so my preference goes out to that one. I would like to know how the common Cuban and Bolivian man feels about the film(s); how do they look at it? Does the pace and imagery speak to them differently?I can understand that the film makers intended to show a realistic picture, not needlessly spicing it up. But that doesn't mean it should be dispassionate. I felt completely dissociated from everyone and everything. Even the moments where tension would be unavoidable were emotionally flat. And that comatose state rambles on for four long hours. My walk through marshlands this afternoon was far more enthralling.
I should add several positive remarks though. Del Toro plays a VERY believable Che and that deserves praise. The cinematography is flawless. And seeing things in their right context will help anyone obtain a more vivid picture of El Comandante's life/execution/surroundings, although that is of course the minimal requirement for a biographical film.
dumbjaw
Better than part 1.vextrigger
very good movie, better than the first partLibertyValance
Several orders of magnitude better than part 1justwannaboogie
Was that.. yes that was Matt Damon.St. Gloede
Not as good as part 1.