Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che  Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?
James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One  that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward  usually everlasting love or material wealth  as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage  not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.
Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.
High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena  light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say  and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).
But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this  interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations  make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.
There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.
With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.
But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.

I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.
First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.
Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).
The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more!
In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word "superfluous" covers it all.