Great comedy here, good laughs. That's all that was supposed to be here in the first place, right? Kept me laughing the whole way - the Ryan Reynolds Jerry O'Connell tandem rock solid. If you liked this, and you should for what it was (Ebert could lighten up but then again he probably can't be PC and give this movie anything more than zero stars), check out Tomcats - similarly funny and original. The Ryan Reynolds naked seen all too familiar and funny like a similar fate that met O'Donnell in "Tomcats" with a little kid thinking he's a perv, providing equal laughs. Alyssa Milano is a great addition here too, overall very solid goofy movie that had some original lines and laughs and great physical comedy. what's not to like, unless you are overly stiff


Ryan Reynolds (who plays Mike Hanson) should be getting more major rolls; as should Ron Livingston (who plays Tyler Carter Bellows). It seems that no one notices the massive amounts of talent these two dudes have... if only I had the money. Of the women in this movie only Alyssa Milano (Amy) stands out as portraying anything other than a stick figure. She was warm approachable, loving, and real. The rest struck me as mannequins.

The script was OK but struck me as thin - much like "Wild Hogs" - Walt Becker's other major effort. Given time I can see him pwning (it's a gamer's spelling) Hollywood.

Another reviewer called this a great date movie... that's the last thing I would want to see with someone I was trying to get to know. It's all about marriage - too soon for a date movie. Nonetheless, if you want a light romp through relationship land then this is pretty darn light reading. 7/10.

-LD

______________________________________________

my bread: http://www.joesbread.com/

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/


"Buying the Cow" is an extremely well written, highly quotable, overlooked gem of a comedy. Ron Livingston, Ryan Reynolds, and everyone involved must have had a blast making this. If you enjoy the way "Swingers" exposes male insecurities, "Buying the Cow" is your movie. This is definitely one of the best comedies that no one has ever heard of. After you see "Buying the Cow", you will likely be telling your friends, both male and female, that you have discovered comedy gold. The DVD has minimal extras, but with mega-multiple viewing value you won't care. Run, don't walk and rent "Buying the Cow", you will love it. - MERK


I think it was the obvious title choice that didn't make this film a block buster. Word of mouth can only go so far. It is a romantic comedy that all ages can relate to. By no means is this a "chick flick" movie though. The movie has a great cast from Ryan Reynolds (Waiting) to Alyssa Milano (Charmed). The movie characters all play significant roles that tie into the theme- "Why would you want to Buy the Cow when you can get the milk for free?" It's a hilarious adventure of a film about dating and the ultimate search for your "soul mate" or the "one". It is the perfect date movie. I found it to be more than hilarious, with actor/comedian Ryan Reynolds stealing the show.

For all the Ryan Reynolds fans out there this is hands down the funniest performance of his career. This feel good movie will appeal to all, especially to those romantic single gals and guy's out there. This movie will leave you feeling high on life with a refreshing feeling of hope.

This is a definite must see! Excellent!


This movie is my favorite. It has so many truths and is hilarious. I recommend to any guy. It helps explain relationships. It also faces everyday problems with dating and finding the one. A must see for anyone between the ages of 20 - 40. Has some great characters kind of like Tomcats. The guy from Office Space, and others. If you like comedies you will love this movie. THere are a lot of one liners too that are very funny. Ryan Renolds is great too. I like how they explain dating problems and finding "the one". THe movie flows very well especially when Ryan thinks he is gay!lol and the flashbacks at the airport.


This movie is the best movie that I have ever bought that I did know anything about!!! I only bought it because of Ryan Reynolds, but I must say that I will be recommending it to all of my friends and to everyone here.

If you want to laugh and watch a movie that is so completely underrated that I want to complain, then please go, buy a copy, rent one, what ever you have to do to be able to see this hilarious movie. Yes OK the ending is slightly predictable but it doesn't matter.

If you try it and it didn't suit you then at least you tried something new.


Great comedy.

Without being cliché like "scary movie" which the motto is to lampoon other movies features all the time!!! Also what I found interesting is the comic way the movie speaks about love.There was also a David (Jerry O'Connell)'s quote that called my attention which is something like this: "The worst thing is not to live a life time alone expecting the write woman to marry, but marry the wrong woman and spend the rest of your life with her" Almost every woman in this movie is gorgeous, so if one of them feel curious to know me just contact me by my e-mail. Eventually it is an a good and funny romantic comedy to enjoy.


Sometimes I have this strange fascination where I have to watch stuff I know I'll hate. I like Jerry O'Connell as a TV actor, but can't think of a film he's been in since Stand By Me that I've liked. I tried watching Tomcats recently and it was(unsurprisingly) awful- very stereotypical and sexist. Then I saw "Buying the Cow" on (of all places!) the Oxygen channel and that Jerry O'Connell was in it. I thought, hey, if Oxygen is playing it, it can't be that demeaning to women or perpetuate tired gender stereotypes! Boy was I wrong!

There are probably less than 5 films that I have never finished watching to the end- this is one of them. I usually don't review films without watching the whole thing, but this was just too bad.

I couldn't make it past the homophobic terror scene when the guy thinks he got drunk and slept with a guy -folowing by a pedophilia joke. It could have been a funny scene, but they had to push the envelope from a funny misunderstanding to sheer homophobic panic - he has to be shown vomiting and almost kill himself just to leave - and then if that wasn't tasteless enough, they added a scene where he's mistaken for a pedophile!

Sexism, homophobia & pedophilia jokes do NOT make for a good movie! AVOID AT ALL COSTS!


This is actually a great direct to video Comedy, that really surprised me by how enjoyable and funny it was, with fun performances!. All the characters are cool, and the story is pretty good as well, plus Jerry O'Connell plays a great funny lead!. For me though Ryan Reynolds stole a lot of the scenes, as he is absolutely hilarious, and it has some great eye candy in Bridgette Wilson and Alyssa Milano, but they also give good performances, plus it's very well made and written. One of the funniest parts in the movie for me is when Ryan Reynolds announces at a wedding that he is a raging homosexual, and also when he thinks he has slept with a man, plus it's good natured as well. All the characters are extremely likable, and this reminded me somewhat of Tomcats, only better and funnier, plus it kept me guessing throughout, as I was actually expecting it to be predictable. I'm not usually a fan of Direct to video Comedies, but this one is an exception, and I really liked the ending too, plus the whole cast seemed to be enjoying themselves. This is actually a great direct to video Comedy, that really surprised me by how enjoyable and funny it was, with fun performances, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Walt Becker does a great! job here, with very good camera work, and just keeping the film funny and at a very fast pace. The Acting is fun!. Jerry O'Connell is very funny here as the main lead, he has lots of charisma, is very likable, offered plenty of laughs, had a cool character, and really seemed to be enjoying himself, it's too bad we don't see him as often anymore, because I really dig this guy! (Jerry Rules!!). Bridgette Wilson is incredibly gorgeous, and does very well with what she had to do, she had a likable character, and did her job well. Ryan Reynolds is absolutely hilarious here, every time he was on screen he managed to crack me up, he had a very cocky&arrogant character, but I couldn't help but love him, he stole a lot of the scenes! (Ryan Rules!!!!). Bill Bellamy is good as Jonesy I dug him. Alyssa Milano is very gorgeous, and has a sexy part, it's just she didn't have much screen time. Ron Livingston does good with what he had to do, I liked him. Erinn Bartlett and Scarlett Chorvat are hot as the Madison sisters, and played there roles fairly well. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5


Buying The Cow is a tale of David Collins (Jerry O'Connell) who freaks after his girlfriend begins hinting for a proposal which results in him dating strange women. Ryan Reynolds and Alyssa Milano play a gay man and a hot girl.

Buying the Cow had some comedy flow but it was not what I expected before purchasing. It is more serious then I realised for an O'Connell film. It had something that grabbed me but didn't quiete real me in.

See for yourself.

Pros well acted, realistic

Cons didn't quite grab me, predictable


For those who just want a quick to the point review; this movie was awful. I'm not being a film snob; it's not like I went in expecting much, but aside from the Ryan Reynolds and Bill Bellamy eye candy, this movie had nothing to offer. The jokes were flat, the plot was derivative, and the story was not only stupid but painfully redundant. In fact, entire chunks of plot, and characters such as the "token black guy" Jonesy, played by Bill Bellamy, were absolutely pointless, and borderline offensive.

If you are going to watch a wacky sexual young-adult romp, watch "Van Wilder" or even an Adam Sandler movie--anything to stop you from wasting your money on "Buying the Cow". It was "straight-to-video" for a reason, trust me!


We all know the phrase "buying the cow" and this movie does a pretty good job of giving some different views on why one should commit or not. Ultimately, though, there are too many silly scenes and stereotypes that end up appearing stupid as opposed to humorous. The film does offer a few chuckles, but unfortunately too few to make the film worthwhile. Some scenes remind me of "There's Something About Mary", but there are just too few funny times. I think if the stereotypical situations went way out there, the funny scenes could really provide a good laugh.

There are a couple unexpected twists, and that keeps it interesting. Also, it's great to see the World Trade Center in the NYC skyline.

I saw this on a local cable channel, and am glad I didn't rent it. I wouldn't have felt that I'd gotten my money's worth. There are plenty of other good dating movies to see. This wouldn't be one of them.


For some reason this movie got buried and ended up being released straight to video or whatever and the somewhat funny but crappier Van Wilder was released. There aren't many misses when it comes to the jokes(not as much as I can say for Van Wilder, American Pie 2 or Scary Movie 2). Maybe this movie was too controversial because of all the jokes with underaged kids? Anyway, this movie is a laugh riot.


I couldn't stop laughing in this one. I thought the eye candy in this movie was awesome. Only problem I have is....I can't find a place to buy it on DVD. Probably a bunch of stick in the mud critics hated the movie....and the producers did feel it was worth trying to sell. What a shame.


Che: Part One felt very complete and fulfilling. I found myself looking at Ernesto "Che" Guevara as a very well rounded person. Not as an ideological self fulfilling man but as an articulate man with thought out rational decisions as well as a man with many useful talents.

The acting of the cast all around was very good but Benicio Del Toro took the movie by storm but he did this in a very subtle way. His performance displayed how Che's spirit was able to superseded the hardships faced in the Cuban Revolution. It did not display any brutality or recklessness but a devotion to a cause. Del Toro's perforations was that worthy of an Oscar nomination but I don't think Che Guervara cared to much about awards.

The directing by Steven Soderbergh was visually stunning at times with much of the scenes shot in the forest. What kept the movie upbeat though were the scenes of Che in New York giving interviews and addressing the U.N. It added an extra layer to the film allowing you to see another side of Che. The side in which he shows his political and speaking abilities. The writing was very good with the dialog always keeping you engrossed. The music, though not much of it, was very good and stayed within rhythm of the rest of the film.

Overall the film succeeds in showing Che as a well rounded man never developing into oversimplified or unnecessarily complex portrayal of a man. The movie was very accurate and refused to take on a role of being inspiring or Hollywoodish which I enjoyed. The only problem with the film I had was that it seems to have a little too much of a feel of a war film rather than a biopic. Still I highly recommend this film.


Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.

If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.

The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is The Argentine, depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is Guerrilla, and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.

This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.

It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one.


In the first of the two Che films (this London Film Festival screening I attended showed both The Argentine and Guerrilla back to back with an intermission) we get all we might expect from a Soderbergh film. Detail without obsessiveness; straightforward storytelling without diluting or oversimplification. The period covered is the Cuban revolution from inception to completion, with flashbacks of Guevara addressing the UN in 1964. Though a large - and largely well-acted - ensemble film, Del Toro dominates the screen. His presence, utterly submerged in his character, gives the impression of a patient, caring Guevara, steely, rather than fiery and almost never ill-tempered. I don't know if we are given a balanced portrait of Guevara but this performance will win Del Toro a best performing actor Oscar. The bookies might as well pay out now.

On top of the Soderbergh's own lush photography I was also stirred by Alberto Iglesias' insistent, original but unobtrusive score. By far the better of the two Che biopics. 8/10


Maybe the most refreshing thing about Che, both parts, is that its director, Steven Soderbergh, didn't know anything about Ernesto "Che" Guevara before taking on the project. This is like a good few in the audience, like yours truly. I didn't know much at all about Che except that he was involved with communist uprisings and revolutions, was buddy-buddy with Castro, and died in execution-style as a guerrilla (that, and his image appears on t-shirts everywhere). What Soderbergh provides for an audience that will go to see it for what he will do with the project- and what Benicio Del-Toro does with the character- is that it's a history lesson made vibrant and urgent and passionate and, according to the director in interviews and Q & A's, honest portrayal of events.

If this means that we may not get exactly a fully rounded portrait of its titular protagonist/hero, then that's probably the only real liability that the picture has. Maybe, perhaps, rightfully so; Che wasn't a guy, at least in his prime revolutionary years, to be one that had much warmth or moments of doubt (and if he had them, they were behind closed doors and out of any record of diaries). So what we get in Part 1, the conventional "Rise" of the character in the story, is the tale of how to do a revolution right- or rather, how to take over a government by military force, and it's Che as a man who pretty quickly becomes a natural leader, a stern taskmaster and also someone who "loves" as a revolutionary must, Che says.

It's gripping film-making nevertheless, with Soderbergh commanding the narrative wonderfully between a color-filmed part-digital-part-35mm Red-camera on the 1957-1959 events in Cuba and the 1964 trip to the UN in New York filmed in grainy black and white. What we get is part documentary and part bio-pic, words straight from the guerrilla's mouth, as it were, and the events that led up to the take-over (which serves as the climax of the picture) in Santa Clara, Cuba. Some of the elements, as noted, are conventional of just a war picture: we get the young kids (16 and 14) who will do anything to fight with Guevara and his group; we get the supposed love interest, only (thankfully) muted with only one scene with small talk; and we get the moments of enthusiasm, humor, camaraderie, and unlikely bravery in the heat of battle.

But most importantly we see Benicio del-Toro take command of this role like he does seemingly often but rarely with such force. In fact, he probably elevates this Che past some possible pit-falls (this project was actually his baby, as he serves as co-producer and developed the project for years), and makes him as human as he can be, using Che's health-tic (asthma) to its fullest, and reveling in going for broke as far as gusto and revelation go. For all of Soderbergh's command of the film-making style- most of all, for me, during the climactic battle where we get to see him awesomely direct a battle sequence- del-Toro, for any scene he's in, steals the show. If for nothing else, whatever your political stance or thoughts on Che, he's worth the admission. 8.5/10


He was a revolutionary fighter, a doctor, a social philosopher and a martyr who turned to armed warfare as a 'necessary' means of stamping out the foreign complexities, poverty and injustice that had bled South America for centuries. He was a Marxist, a writer, a guerrilla and a diplomat who rose to prominence as a leader of Fidel Castro's radical '26th of July Movement': a left wing political party that launched an armed invasion of Cuba rapt on toppling U.S backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. This historical revolt: the focal point of director Steven Soderbergh's enduring, coarse and superbly crafted part one of two biopic. A sometimes bitty, sometimes brilliant hand-held epic that succeeds in its failure to fall into the consumer culture camp that's exploited Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's image now for so long.

Steven Soderbergh refrains, then, from counteracting the magnitude of Che: Part One's dense political platform by ramping up the fireworks. This wont appeal to mainstream viewers. This is not a Cuban Braveheart. This is not some twisted Scarface prequel. There will be no post-movie pop-art. Che: Part One is an intelligent and vital take on the man behind the myth not a balls-to-the-wall action spectacle blaring with blood, bullets and CGI. It's a thorough and naturalistic treatise on iconic human drive and endeavour that infrequently shuttles between monochrome and Technicolor, between Che Guevara's 1964 delegation at the UN headquarters and time spent trudging through the Cuban jungle.

If your understanding of certain political ideals and movements are, at best, hazy- then it's best to steer clear of this one. You're likely are likely to find the first serving of Soderbergh's four-and-a-half-hour, two part political epic a little confusing. This ain't no Hollywood funded, slick and stylish, over-dramatic chronicle concerned with entertainment or income. This isn't 'Defiance' or 'Valkrye'. This is a well-researched, claustrophobic and paced political drama (shot in Spanish) where spurts of action, violence and humour are few and far between. Imagine Oliver Stone's 'Salvador' by the way of Terrance Mallick's 'The Thin Red Line': fragmented, anti-mainstream and very heavy-going.

The bravura Benicio Del Toro stars as Che and is quite excellent. He delivers a focused and unwavering performance worthy of a thousand accolades: his finest since '21 Grams'. The fact that Del Toro is fluent in Spanish also helps, as does a rallying and unknown supporting cast that work well as a low-key ensemble. It's all about Del Toro, though. His insurgent, intense and convincing Che is one marred by crippling bouts of asthma yet defined by a burning desire to educate and reform- to put his litigious beliefs into action and unite Latin America.

With Che: Part One, the diligent Steven Soderbergh has found his blend of realism and narrative, documentary and drama. As an avid Che fan and reader of his books and biographies, there is little doubt in my mind that this monumental work will stand as the first piece in the definitive two part screen portrait of one the twentieth century's most iconic, yet largely uncharted, political figures.

Final Verdict: While lesser films wallow in the limelight, Che: Part One stirs understated in the shadows seemingly content with the fact that it wont appeal to all, or many. Steven Soderbergh has crafted a very loyal and well-made biopic. One that demythologises, one that educates, one that excels and ensues Walter Salle's soul-searching Che preface: The Motorcycle Diaries.


I always find director Steven Soderbergh's experiments interesting because they challenge the spectator and they go beyond the common.The Argentine also falls on that category.This a fascinating movie and it clearly is one of the best I have seen this year.Soderbergh made a wonderful work as a director because of the excellent performances he got from the cast and for his extreme attention to the details.Benicio del Toro brings a monumental performance as Che Guevara.He completely becomes on him and he never seems to be acting.Demián Bichir also brings a magnificent performance as Fidel Castro.This movie kept me very entertained and it brings a very valid and important message.The only fail I found on this movie was that it was a little bit long on a specific moment.But that's a minor fail.The Argentine is a fascinating experiment I liked very much.This is one of that movies which challenge the spectator and have something to say and I really admire that.I totally recommend this film.


When it comes to biopics, there are usually two discernibly differentiated forms; the film, and the documentary. Of course, when I use the word documentary, I don't mean it literally, but rather, as a means to say that the approach its director takes it similar to those used by directors of documentaries. Che, which comes in the shadow of a recent but very different cousin W., is such a movie that exists not to entertain or provide the viewer with any personal gratification outside of historical and biographical information on its central figure and topic. Where Oliver Stone decided to take a much more light-hearted, human paintbrush to his canvas, Steven Soderbergh here uses stern, almost completely serious shades, creating an informative and compelling account of a man that became a living icon in our modern culture. So like most of those that have come before it, Che is a movie that is best appreciated under no pretence; this is a history lesson disguised as film, and while it does tell a good story, those looking for entertainment best look away.

Of course, the icon that I refer to is quite obviously Cuban revolutionist Ernesto 'Che' Guevara here played by Benicio Del Toro, a figure now embellished upon the memories of those with slightest interest in political history. If not, then you probably have his face on a t-shirt somewhere and you didn't know. Yet it doesn't matter how or why you know of Guevara before you view Che because Peter Buchman does a fine job of introducing you to him here. Plus, coupled with a performance that never begs for attention but instead simply plays the man he's supposed to be portraying with no overt padding, Del Toro goes a long way to giving Che the right amount of conviction that is needed to keep thing interesting and dynamic. Make no mistake, this is no dramatization of the man's life, so Del Toro never piles on the melodrama or anything to that degree to win over the audience, and this is reflected not only through the movie's ensemble of performances, but through the entire production itself.

Had the feature remained its original singular, five hour form however, a different opinion may have been garnered, but as it stands, the movie does well on its own merit. Part One, which details the initial struggle of the revolution of Cuba, is less about Guevara and more about his cause under the leadership of Fidel Castro. Granted, focus is shifted every now and again to set up part two's inevitable centralization upon Che himself, but for the most part, Part One remains more as a wide-angled view on the movement in which Guevara was part of. This shift in focus does well to once again distance the movie away from mere speculative entertainment and more towards the form of an educational informant. Yes, there are scenes that drag on and on, and generally some of these seem superfluous and dubious to the overall arc of the production, but for the most part, the script and direction remains coherent in its willingness to merely document rather than emote.

As a whole, Che's first half is an unassuming picture. At first glance, it isn't anything remotely special, and probably won't provide viewers with any degree of resonance if they are not interested in the man and his people's struggle beforehand, yet the same can be said for a number of similar features. Instead, I can only recommend this to those who are interested in the revolution and don't mind slow paced, attention-demanding material that does entertain from time to time, but only as a natural result of its historical importance. Again, those looking for a character piece similar to Stone's portrayal of George W. Bush last year would be wise to reevaluate their will to see Che; although titled after the man himself, and a biopic on a purely ostensible level, Che is more about his fight than the man himself. There are no real moments of personal insight here, no cathartic revelations or studies of psyche. No, instead the movie tells the facts as they were, straight from the horses mouth, and while they can sometimes work against the common desires of cinema goers' need for personal fulfillment, if digested objectively, can provide a strongly engaging, interesting and informative piece of historically significant art.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)


Che Part One is an interesting and enjoyable film about the Cuban revolution, that focuses on the infamous Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. The story follows Che from his first meeting with Castro, to the climactic battle in Santa Clara, where Batista's army makes its last stand against the revolutionaries.

This battle scene is filmed guerrilla warfare style in an urban environment, with short bursts of action followed by silence as soldiers move into newer/better positions. It all feels very tense and realistic, which makes a nice change to the shaky cam explosion fests that we're used to. This style works well throughout the rest of the film but swaps the city for the jungle.

The flash forward scenes where Che is interviewed and later addresses the United Nations, help to give the story, and Che, more depth and background, whilst giving us insights into his personality and ideology. Along with the battles, these scenes also help to break up the slower parts of the film.

Cinematography in the film is good and occasionally great, with some stunning shots of the Cuban landscape. The black and white scenes are also well shot, without feeling out of place.

On another positive note, Benicio Del Toro does an excellent job portraying Che. He is understated and believable as the man who wanted to change people's lives, focused on doing what he thought was right.

Unfortunately though, I had trouble caring about or even remembering most of the other characters, as dialogue between them isn't particular memorable. Sometimes you almost feel like you're watching a documentary that's trying to teach rather than entertain and this can start to wear, especially when you're reading subtitles. Che may also be shown in a better light than some would like, although honestly I feel the film is fairly accurate in its portrayal of the man and the history.

I'd definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in Che or the events in Cuba. Even if at times things do get a little slow, it's still a rewarding and informative experience.


Telling about the years from his fateful first encounter with the Castro brothers in Mexico to the end of the revolution, The Argentine helps show how a young doctor became a Comandante respected and loved by a nation that was not even his. This was a man with ideals, one who believed in the love of humanity, justice, and truth. He was a doctor above all else, patching up the troops and making sure the people in every village they passed through had the care and attention they needed. He also was not afraid to lead the charge and stand at the frontlines without fear of death. One must live as though they have already died, then the fear will be gone and you can do what is necessary for the cause. It is about the group and the country, not about his survival. In his idealized communist beliefs he was fighting for Cuba and the only outcomes allowed were victory or his own destruction.

Soderbergh's ambitions are evident right from the start. Although it mainly concerns the years between 1955-1962, he splices in events happening later on as Che visits the UN. Shot in black and white to help juxtapose against the sumptuous colors of our main action, these future scenes comment on what is happening during the war, cutting in to enhance the tale. There is a lot of structural jumping between the years, each change titled with a date and place to orient us as the viewers. The technique lends a more modern artistic scope to what would otherwise be a linear narrative and I believe helps tell the story more coherently. He has edited the film for the most efficient portrayal of the facts, a somewhat cause and effect relationship to better let us understand the situation. And it is a beautifully shot film, lending a fly on the wall type feel as we follow the revolutionaries or watch the UN debate. It is less artifice than an account of what happened based on the memoirs of Guevara himself. All the battles and all the victories from start to finish, his own uphill advancement through the ranks, from doctor to right-hand man, instructor of new recruits to leader of an army. However, if this film is to be believed, Che never wanted the power past being able to get the job done. Once Cuba was free he wanted to bring the revolution to all of Latin America, to share his experiences and political viewpoints. An intelligent man, he is shown fighting for his beliefs, no matter the cost. Unafraid to do what was needed meant he was unafraid to kill. Does a man like that deserve to be glorified in a film like this? That is in the eye of the beholder because to some he was a hero and a patriot, but like every conflict in history, where there is a good side there is a bad. To view a battle objectively is impossible because there will always be someone to defend it and someone else to protest.

The Argentine is one that will make you think about the strength of the mind and the power of ideas. A country came together and helped back a revolt with force to take over the government. With the charismatic and understated performance from Benicio Del Toro as Che, one can't help but see why. Always with a smile and a kind word, he ruled with respect and without compromising his beliefs. The fact that he leads intellectually makes the moments of outburst that much more effective. The role should garner a lot of praise as he embodies the man completely, shedding any preconceptions of the actor himself. Demotions and promotions don't apply during his tenure in the army, he does what Castro needs him to do; he follows his leader and expects the same from those under him. He portrays this man as one to be listened to and taken seriously. Castro himself holds council and values his ideas, and one might say that if Fidel was the face of the revolt, the man pulling the strings, Che was the muscle, the force allowing it all to happen.

In the end, though, while the visuals are gorgeous and the acting superb, it is the story that leaves a little something to be desired. Structurally interesting and easier to follow than one might think due to the jumps in time, we are not shown all the details. Often times we are thrown directly into the action without knowledge of why we are there or what is happening for what reason. Events occur and we are shown flashes, learning details after the fact or never at all. An example is when Che all of a sudden needs a cast for his arm. We don't know what happened, another character actually asks him, but when the answer is about to be said, we cut to another scene. Soderbergh seems to have crafted the tale he wanted to, only allowing us to see what he deems important, while leaving all other details by the wayside. He paints Guevara in a kind light, as a warrior with a purpose, never putting himself in front of the mission or country. In that regard the film is about the Argentine, but on the whole it is really about the war itself. Why is Batista bad? Why is Castro good? None of that matters. This isn't a history lesson showing the reasoning or rationale, you can get that in a book. Instead Soderbergh is just sharing the events themselvesas they happen, not why. You can't deny the scale or ambitions on display, however, the lack of background may make it hard to decipher, or even hard to really care.


Steven Soderbergh is an interesting director; he takes the old concept of "one for me, one for the studios" further by seemingly being able to operate within both the independent and the studio circuit effectively as an artist and entertainer. Here he has done something very important, and that is to make a movie out of someone's life that is not strictly a biopic and has concerns outside the desire to essentialize the life into a narrative.

Che: Part One deals directly with Che Guevara in Cuba as part of the 26th of July Movement (the one that put Fidel Castro into power). It jumps back and forth between Guevara's visits and interviews in the United States (in "documentary grainy" black and white) and his roles in the guerilla army (in much more effectively shot color). I can't say the whole black-and-white-as-documentary-realism conceit worked all that well here, but at least it helped readily and visually jump between spaces.

The details are history. Guevara stands as a powerful symbol of resistance, and his writings important tactical information on guerilla warfare. To sit and watch this, you are asked to sit in with history being made through characters while the political world stands hidden beyond the trees or stated passive-aggressively in UN meetings. A little previous knowledge of Che Guevara's biography helps, but the storytelling is good enough that his character becomes a dialog in and of itself. One important aspect in specific is analyzed: how armed and violent revolution necessates use of extreme force and judgment, and yet how humanitarianism can coexist within the same body.

Nonetheless, this movie does not focus into great detail the hundreds of executions that took place after Fidel's rise to power. Neither does the second part. But that, in itself, is another document...

--PolarisDiB


Che is a good film for chronicling the events leading to the Cuban Revolution and certainly has a mystic potency surrounding Che and his political ideals. However there is no emotional core or compassionate deliverance to make this anything more than interesting, and is a friendly inspection of Che's mindset rather than anything inspiring.

The events in Che offer insight into guerrilla warfare but it fails to capture the imagination. Much of the score in Che is over-dramatic and frictional to the narrative, it tries to up the tempo but it comes across as rather willful and disjointed. As the war continues comrades die and characters which you have been deliberately introduced to perish without a second-glance. The biggest failure for Che is that it does not have any emotional engagement with its characters, it is happy to leisurely move through the film.

Che is a likable film but it does not grip, or pull at your heartstrings. The film is well-made but it is a film produced almost with an educational edge. Rather than exploring Che and his revolutionaries with any passion it glides steadily along to an ending well-suited to its purpose.


What on earth was director Steven Soderbergh thinking when he decided to tackle the story of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, the Argentinian born doctor and revolutionary who joined Fidel Castro's campaign to take Cuba back from the American backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista? What motivated the director of Oceans Eleven,Twelve and Thirteen to make this amazing 4½ hour biopic. Why Che Guevara, and why now? How did he even manage to get the funding for a film about a communist revolutionary in the first place? What was the pitch? Not that there is anything wrong with the film. Far from it. Soderberg tells Guevara's story with loving attention to detail, and without resorting to sentimentality or melodrama.

This is not the first time Che's story has been turned into a movie. The 2004 film, The Motorcycle Diaries, examines the formation of Guevara's early politicization, and  But Soderberg's film (with Benicio Del Toro in the lead role as Che Guevara), is the first to try and tell the whole story of Guevara's involvement in the Cuban revolution, and his subsequent attempt to spread the revolution to Boliva, where he was eventually caught and killed in October 1967.

Part 1, deals with the fight against Batista. The long hard slog of waging a guerrilla campaign is covered in great detail as a boatload of 82 revolutionaries head for Cuba during November 1956, and the struggle to win Cuba back for the Cuban people begins.

The first film draws extensively on the Guevara's own writings, especially his memoir "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War". The months and years of protracted guerrilla warfare are inter-cut with beautifully recreated scenes showing Che addressing the United Nations in 1964, and conducting numerous interviews with a range of media outlets.

Soderberg uses these scenes to explain some of the history and 'back story' to the Cuban revolution, and to give the audience some insight into Che Guevara  the man and revolutionary. Part 1 of Che ends in 1959 as Batista flies into exile in the United States, and the revolutionaries under the leadership of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are about to enter Havana.

Drawing on Guevara's 'Bolivian Diary', Part 2 of Che takes up the story as Che, going under the pseudonym of 'Ramon', lands in Boliva in 1965, and begins trying to recruit local guerrilla's with the intention of overthrowing the ruling government.

Here, his campaign to recruit local peasant farmers fails, and before he and his small band of revolutionaries are able to launch any sort of major anti government attack, they are hunted down and killed with the help of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Che Guevara was wounded and captured on or about October 9, 1967. It is a matter of record that he was alive at the time of his capture, and that he was subsequently shot and killed to ensure he would no longer be able to foment revolution either in Boliva or elsewhere in Latin America. How ironic then that his execution has sparked a 'cult of the revolutionary' that has not diminished over the intervening 40 plus years since his death.

Of course, apart from the Oceans series of films, Soderberg has shown he is socially aware by also directing Erin Brockovich, Traffic (again with Del Toro), and The Good German, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised that he decided to tackle the story of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.

Don't be fooled by the inclusion of other A-list cast members (Julia Ormond, Matt Damon, Franka Potente, and Lou Diamond Phillips) in Che. All of these actors have minor roles, and small support parts. In fact Matt Damon is on screen for less than two minutes! I can only assume that Soderberg needed some additional well known actors to help secure finance and distribution for the film.

However, this is without a doubt Benicio Del Toros' film. His performance is a revelation. He inhabits the role of Guevara so well, that there are times when I wasn't sure if the historical footage  recreated in black and white  didn't have the real Che Guevara in them.

According to the program notes, Soderberg is working an a middle part to Che's story. This film will apparently cover Guevara's experiences in Africa. If this is the case, then this trilogy will indeed constitute Steven Soderberg's masterpiece. I can think of no other biopic to rival it, and the finished series should help to keep the legend of 'Che' Guevara alive for at least another 40 years.


Che is sometimes, almost like life itself, a bit of a mess. It meanders. In and around the time of the Cuban revolution  and so fittingly that the film is being released 50 years on  but jumps back and forth to give us black and white footage of Che Guevara addressing the United Nations. Or meeting McCarthy in New York. And then through lush tropical terrain, fighting to overthrow the regime in power until 1959.

Says director Steven Soderbergh, "I was drawn to Che as a subject for a movie (or two) not only because his life reads like an adventure story, but because I am fascinated by the technical challenges that go along with implementing any large-scale political idea. I wanted to detail the mental and physical demands these two campaigns required, and illustrate the process by which a man born with an unshakable will discovers his own ability to inspire and lead others." With that brief, there are so many different films that could have been made. This is one of them. And rather a good one. Yet probably not the one you will expect.

There is plenty of close-up fighting. But somehow we feel quite removed from it. What Soderbergh portrays is not the action hero. Nor the colourful historical drama. Neither is Benicio Del Toro's portrait one painted in close-ups and interiorisation. Instead, we have the vision. Depicted in a way consistent with the man's outlook  a team-player as well as a guerrilla and idealist. A doctor and a soldier who aroused strong loyalty. "I was trying to find the scenes that would happen before or after the scene you would typically see in a movie like this," says Soderbergh. The result is casual, desultory. We get the feeling of what it may have been like to be around such a man. 'Political' is simply the mechanism, the "procedural of guerrilla warfare." Soderberg is agnostic about Guevara and indifferent to the rabid hatred of people who have not even seen the film.

Meticulously researched over many years, Che is a considerable achievement in historical accuracy. And yet here is the first controversy. Wouldn't a balanced portrait of such an almost mythologized figure include more of his faults as well as his virtues? I found myself struggling with this. A director who was capable of describing such a multiplicity of viewpoints (in his earlier film, Traffic) or bringing a real character to life on screen with emotional force (as in Erin Brockovich) was giving me something rather bland and unquestioning (Oliver Stone's insipid Comandante was already coming to mind). Che Guevara was lionised by the liberal left from Sartre to Nelson Mandela, and is still a hero to many of the world's youth. But he is also a hated figure by the anti-Castro Miami Cubans, not least for the bloody executions that followed his socialist revolution (a period conveniently ignored in the movie.) I had berated Charlize Theron for her right-leaning documentary, East of Havana , for its mis-statement of facts. But isn't Soderbergh's film, with seemingly the opposite political bent, guilty of omission? "There is no amount of accumulated barbarity that would have satisfied the people who hate him," says the director when confronted with this. Although this will not appease the fervent anti-Castro-ists, it does give some justification to the filmmaker's choices.

Guevara is not just a political-historical figure. Based on the famous photo by Korda, his image continues to emblazon t-shirts and memorabilia worldwide. For many youngsters, it is simply an anti-authority figure. In parts of South America that I have visited, it symbolises opposition to U.S. economic occupation. In other words, a hero. The inspiration (rightly or wrongly) is of someone who put moral ideals above his own material welfare. Not a bad image for a youngster to aim at perhaps. When we analyse the real person (which most people don't), we could perhaps ask if noble ideals are as noble when they don't always have noble results.

Soderbergh has had to condense enough material for a dozen films. The romantic youth so ably portrayed in Motorcycle Diaries left the viewing public deprived of any representation of the most famous and important period of Che Guevara's life. Before we passively sit down to a Spielberg-sized over-interpretation for bums on seats at the box-office, perhaps we should hail Soderbergh for this calm, relatively unspectacular and unemotional account. It is not a political film. But it perhaps approaches as close to documentary as biopic is capable of. Benicio Del Toro becomes Che Guevara with great acumen. Not flamboyantly. Not with great theatrics or displays of emotion. Sincere and almost reverent, he blends seamlessly with quasi-documentary footage. Unless you heard the real Che Guevara speak at the United Nations, this is probably the next best thing.

On the other hand, if your reply is, "United what?" and you would prefer a well-made Hollywood romp, please leave Che to us sad little people that inhabit art-house cinemas . . .


I haven't seen many films since 2009 came, three visits to the movie theater before the one to see Che Part One (The Argentine) and of that three visits I had not really entirely pleasant experiences since Bedtime Stories is simply a bad movie, RocknRolla is just OK and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was not bad at all yet was not my cup of tea (certainly to read my entire opinion of those movies you can check my comments!). Fourth visit, Che, simply a great film that I loved. I don't really know when will be released in my city Che Part Two (Guerrilla), I hope it will in theaters next Friday and if so I will, certainly, be there.

Mainly two facets, Benicio del Toro did simply a remarkable work, we see Ernesto Guevara in Mexico and certainly Fidel Castro, chronologically that is the first part of the film, the beginning in Mexico City. The film begins and we move from one place to another, we will keep seeing NY while we see the revolutionary road.

A marvelous entertaining picture in the battlefield, in Cuba, we see Che in the battlefield of the revolution, how he was, the medic, a revolutionary not only have to fight, Guevara as the leader, as the fighter. Certainly we see how Che was, many people wanted to join him, the ones who knew how to read and how to write came first, the other ones while not in combat must learn. We follow this period, the way of the revolutionaries, the moves of Fidel Castro and all certainly will take us to Santa Clara but we had memorable parts. A fine example is when two brothers of only 16 and 14 wanted to join the revolutionaries, they were with some other people that certainly also wanted to fight and the brothers were the only ones who knew how to read and write, they will stay and we will see how when all of the revolutionaries had the last chance to stop fighting they will not leave Che and they will have the option to leave the fight but certainly with their honor intact. And talking about memorable parts the very last scene is marvelous since it resumes how Che was. Che will be in La Habana for the very first time.

So The Argentine was just my introduction to the work of Steven Soderbergh, yes I haven't seen sex, lies, and videotape (yet) and Traffic. Here the first very positive fact for me was that the film is in Spanish, in short it is a piece of work and I can't wait to see more Soderbergh starting with Che Part Two! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!


The first part of Soderbergh's biopic is essentially an old fashioned war movie. We first see Che being introduced to Fidel Castro in Mexico and being invited to join the planned invasion of Cuba. Next we see him and a single companion avoiding Batista's troops in the jungle as Guevara struggles with his asthma. Gradually as the rebels gather support and manpower we see Guevara( no more asthma!) getting more senior positions until he finally leads the attack against the final government stronghold of Santa Clara. This is interspersed with excerpts from an interview Che gives while visiting the the UN after the revolution and from his speech to the UN general assembly. These clips give us a feeling for the political opinions of Guevara.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It is essentially a well made war movie. There is relatively about Che the man. Del Toro was made for the role and all the dialogue being in Spanish definitely adds a feel of authenticity.


Review:

Che: Part 1 is a brilliantly crafted film about Che Guevara and his Revolution to bring down Fulgencio Batista. It's an epic and a deep character study of the man and his ambitions. Del Toro creates the character as if it were him. His every movement and gesture is all single handedly captured by an on-form Del Toro.

Steven Soderburgh (Traffic) directs this epic as if he were directing a David Leane epic. The scope and granger of individual shots are executed in near perfect style and substance. Of coarse Che: Part 1 has the makings and proportions of an epic that could certainly in some aspects give Leane a run for his money. Soderburgh also handles the action set pieces with great sound and charisma. Not only do you see the action, you live it and it's because of the way Soderburgh has crafted the frame by frame shots of the set pieces.

Verdict: An amazing study and a truly reassuring film of the legend and his Revolution.


This movie is an extraordinary visual and a humanistic depiction of Ernesto Che Guevara. Like any biopic, there will be discrepancies. However, as a piece of film, and wax needs to do research, Che illustrates the man who fought for Cuba's people. While you may disagree with the ideology, the movie is amazing. Filmed in Puerto Rico and other amazing locations, Benicio's Che is a man with a mission from beginning to end when he is shot in Bolivia.

I do not agree with what Che did in real life and I do not wear a Che tshirt; however, that should not prevent you from seeing this movie.

It is easy to criticize a historical figure without understanding all sides. Please do not let a biased comment prevent you from seeing another great movie by Soderbergh and Benicio del Toro.

Supporting roles from Catalina Sandino Moreno and Demian Bichir make this a must see.

The editing could be improved if indeed this will be shown in two parts when as a whole, it is amazing.


Steven Soderbergh has the knack of draining the passion out of his films (The Good German, The Informant) in a myriad of ways and with his reverential Che Part One he applies them all. Sloppy composition, repetitive detail to the trivial, disjointed editing that looks like it was cut with a machete and lack of character development in anyone except St.Che who more resembles Gandhi than the charismatic and fervent revolutionary who was prone to atrocity ("Can't have a revolution without firing squads"-Lenin).

Part One covers Che's triumphant Cuban guerrilla war from 1956-1959 that brought down the brutal dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. It is clumsily cross cut with Guevera's speech at the UN after Fidel takes power (thankfully color coded in B&W to tell us where we are) and the jarring transitions further impede the films flow save for Che re-phrasing his humanist viewpoint ad nauseum. In the field it gets even more inane as Soderbergh has Che command his followers in a gentle voice that can hardly be heard above the crickets and birds. He's acts more like a parent with recalcitrant teens than rebels and in one case orders sulking soldiers to return a freshly liberated set of hot wheels. Soderbergh lays it on even thicker with his gracious door to door visits to peasants' homes for food, begging and always paying. Che also spends more time doctoring, reading and tutoring math than engaging the enemy, though he does manage at one point to assert action hero status grabbing a bazooka from an inept subordinate and firing a direct hit. Soderbergh completes his canonization by closing Part One with the victorious Che 200 miles out of Havana and for good reason since it would be difficult for his lead to maintain an ethereal demeanor while ordering mass executions without trial.

Looking and speaking in the compassionate tone of an apostle, Bernicio Del Toro shows little of the drive and intensity that Che had to have had to triumph against overwhelming odds. Instead we get an introspective Che in heroic pose reading and writing in his journal and stressing education. The rest of the cast is marginalized including an ambiguous Fidel.

With Che Part One Soderbergh ultimately does Guevera a disservice by sanitizing him and in doing so sucks the vitality and complexity out of a man who by his accomplishments had a lot more about him than is said in this ponderous quagmire of a film.


Back in my fast disappearing youth I was heavily involved with Left Wing politics, and one of my heroes was, of course, Che Guavara, but I never really knew the man behind the legend. The recent films about Che - this, and the excellent 'Motorcycle Diaries' - have helped me to understand the man better, and has lead to a great appreciation of him.

This film starts with Che embarking on his quest, alongside Castro and others, to free Cuba from the American Sponsored dictator Batista. The events in Cuba are shown alongside the later events when Che travelled to New York to address the UN, and through this we see Che beginning to emerge both as a tough jungle/street fighter and political orator with intelligence and feeling, finally transforming himself from a doctor with political leanings to a fully fledged revolutionary.

The New York scenes also illustrate the opposition to Che, both within the UN and out on the streets, which give the film an added depth politically and socially.

Del Toro is outstanding as Che, and he is backed up by a superb supporting cast. The film is also helped by Soderbergh's wonderful visuals - the forests look amazing, and the streets gritty etc, and the careful use of music. Yes, some of the battle scenes do tend towards the "Hollywood", but generally are within keeping of the gritty realism of the rest of the film.

This may not be everyone's cup of poison, but if you like your biopics done with depth and intelligence then this is the film for you. Personally I can not wait for mid March when I will have the chance to see part two!


CHE is a triumphant biopic of idealistic proportion. Excellent production and a captivating story loosely based on the man, the legend himself. We may never know how accurate it is historically speaking but both Part I and Part II of CHE prove not only Director Steven Soderbergh's sharp skills in the art of film-making but also Benicio Del Toro's ability to make us believe he is Che Guevara. It deals with whether or not the concepts of war and humanity can live side by side, whether bloodshed can be justified with an act of kindness and what it is that makes a man patriotic. But if I were to compare, I'd say Part I is just slightly above Part II in quality.

Part I or formerly known as The Argentine has a long runtime but your curiosity will keep you seated. It's a smart move to have each of the both part of this epic start out with geographical maps of first Cuba, and then South America. It's a known fact that most American audiences are geographically challenged, so this method alone helps. After all, it helps to know which city is where as the story progresses. If Steven Soderbergh had made The Motorcycle Diaries, this could've been like a trilogy saga.

We're introduced with a dining scene where doctor Ernesto "Che" Guevara first met Fidel Castro. It is obvious from their conversation that the story wants to remind us of how charismatic Fidel Castro is, of how he can influence a doctor into believing that waging a revolutionary war would make a more drastic change rather than simply healing a man in some clinic in the middle of nowhere. We don't know what but something in Che's experience must've caused him to turn from being a doctor into a soldier, something that motivated him to take up Fidel's offer and make that choice.

And just like the movie Traffic, Soderbergh has different color for each scene, I think he chose black and white to depict Che's visit to the U.N. so it would go well with the archival footage used in the movie and would add to the sense of authenticity of it all. By the way, I like how the timeline and the pacing are constructed. Che's interview and then we see flashbacks of the revolutionary struggle. Goes back and forth but it doesn't ruin the intensity,.. each is well-positioned, if you will.

For the record, those of us who know better, can tell that some of the actors are of different nationalities, from the accent and the looks but I think all of them do a good job of trying to be as convincing as possible. Speaking of which, Benicio Del Toro as Che is perfect, no better actor could pull it off. Is it going to earn him another golden statuette? I doubt it.

Those who always think Che was awesome will be happy and those who always think he was nothing but a murderer and assassin will be disappointed because the movie CHE, especially part I really glorifies the man. It makes him seem like a Messiah with weapons. He would kill the Cuban army but at the same time protect the peasants, he would heal the sick, teach the poor how to read and write, give chance for the cowards to leave the group, and execute those on the inside who have abused their power on the weak. The story makes him look like such a saint, I'm surprised it doesn't have him walk on water. The story also has a good amount of comic-relief played by some of the characters within his little army. Some scenes would give the impression like they're just a bunch of guys chillin', havin' some laughs like normal people. In the interview, Che mentions that the ingredient to revolutionary is love,.. Though Fidel's strategy requires groups to be separated into different assignments, we don't know if the others follows Che's code of honor but the focus on Che's people shows a more positive light. The tactics in the final battle in CHE Part I is nothing short of entertaining. Che's self-sacrifice and heroism has paid off. But his origin and his true passion would finally cost him his life.


So this is what I know. One can trust a director if one likes his/her work, and this trust can be even augmented if the director produces his own work, like the case of Steven Soderbergh with "Che". I like this Soderbergh because he has control over his work, but it's not the only reason. Before, in "Traffic", he showed with his hand-held camera that he knew exactly what he was doing; and that he could do it in several ways (the black and white in "The Good German", to put just an example) and with several genres.

I like Soberbergh because he has style, a defined style; and because he shoots like few directors. In this first part of his "Che", he combines all the forms and styles he has tried when shooting and the result is undoubtedly his most ambitious project, but is it his best? That's a very difficult question that can be treated from different angles and that I'm going to answer with a 'no'.

The movie is Soderbergh's most ambitious work from minute one, throwing in a lot of dates and different places and pictures of newspapers that attempt a quick historical reconstruction. We see Che speaking, in black and white, with people we can't instantly distinguish and Soderbergh's camera wanders through his knee until he finds an icon: Che's cigar. Soon, Guevara is answering questions that have no particular nature but start becoming more precise to define the structure of the film; a confusing ride back and forth in time that revolves around Che but includes a lot of people and a lot of places.

The script, written by Peter Buchman and based on some memoirs of Che himself, clearly seems to be following a faithful reconstruction of the time spent by Che with the Guerilla and the towns he and the army conquered, his relationship with Fidel, the philosophy of life and work he had, his idea of revolutionYes, it's too many people, too many places, too many things; I told you it was ambitious and it's not the most entertaining ride for a viewer.

"Che, El Argentino" is a good movie because it succeeds in apparently everything it attempts to do, and it's obvious it wasn't a little deal. However, the reason of the word 'apparently' is because I found it difficult to find out exactly what Soderbergh was trying to do. I know and can guess some things: he shot in many places and through different periods of time, therefore his cinematography has merit and his editor Pablo Zumárraga has even more; he shot more action sequences than in any of his previous films and he managed to transmit the crudeness and lack of 'spectacularity' of the confrontations of the time, supported by a precise score by Alberto Iglesias; he explored, visually, his main character from almost every angle anyone could think of and this denotes a firm collaboration with the actors who plays it. In fact, the scenes in black and white, where we can easily see that the only ones working where Del Toro and Soderbergh.

It has to be said: Benicio Del Toro's performance is brilliant, but not entirely because of what you see on screen. Even when his moves and postures express the work of someone who has intensely studied a historical figure and traveled for his purpose and God knows what else, his collaboration with Soderbergh is also crucial. The answers he gives throughout the film and define the structure of it, for example, are clearly recorded in post-production; and even when they help the viewer understand, they loose naturalness. Edition must have helped his work a lot; a work that wins in those moments when his Che is quiet, peaceful. There we understand him better and believe him, but then there are moments when he irradiates pure rage and is so natural and convincing that we wonder where he had kept those emotions the whole time.

So as you see, it's a brilliant work, of contradiction. One could easily judge the performance as bad, because he doesn't sound Argentinean or because he doesn't sound the same in every scene; but that wouldn't be fair, even more if you know the great actor Del Toro is.

Everything I've written takes me back to one question, or two a group of questions lead by: "what was Soderbergh's attempt?". Doing a movie about Che Guevara, an emblematic 'icon' (as the movie mentions in one point) everyone carries around in bags and collars and sometimes can't answer why they're carrying his photographs. Did Soderbergh want to show us who Che was? The real Che? Is it enough with a book written by Che himself to understand his message? And how should he put it on screen? Is this a biopic? A historic movie?

The way I see it, it's all too general. Soderbergh made sure he showed the history and both of Che's sides, the one everyone knows as good and the one that's always referred as bad. It's a good decision, as if Soderbergh wouldn't want to discuss this aspect of his film; as if he wouldn't want to fight anyone. Then why doing the film? Maybe my conclusions are wrong and the second part will tell me something else, but that last question isn't worth asking because "Che" is a good movie; and that's enough.


There's some obvious contextual information that we can divulge on when discussing the film Che. It's most notable for being released in two separate parts or volumes if you like, albeit having its world premiere at Cannes in 2008 as well as screening during the Toronto International Film Festival in its unbroken, 4 hour entirety. But now, you can only view the film only in two volumes of equal length now, and this review is concentrated on Part One otherwise subtitled as The Argentine. Next, contrary to possible popular belief or assumption, Che is not your typical biopic film. It doesn't even fall under the realms of being conventional, no. It is directed by American filmmaker Steven Soderbergh who recently made a name for himself with the Ocean's Eleven series; but this recent project of his is a far departure from such follies.

With the aforementioned and hugely popular trilogy of films, Mr. Soderbergh showcased his variety and diversity as a filmmaker by delving into the world of mainstream cinema, leaving a decade long era of experimental, art-house and niche works: from his breakthrough film which won the Palm d'Or Sex, Lies and Videotapes to even less accessible works like Schizopolis and Gray's Anatomy, Soderbergh cemented himself as a truly innovative auteur of contemporary film. Now, he returns to those roots with recent projects The Good German, Bubble, The Girlfriend Experience and now Che. With these, he also maintains this title as an auteur. Che is directed with both fiery passion and earnest rumination at the same time. It is helmed by a director who does not only have a clear mindset and a clear vision of what he's doing, but with a sprawling scope and vision which is so impressive and certainly evoked in this film.

The Argentine focuses the birth of the Cuban revolution, from the landing of figurehead Fidel Castro, our title character Ernesto 'Che' Guevara and other revolutionaries on Cuba and their attempts to topple the dictatorial regime of Fulgencio Batista: a junta riddled with corruption and starving their own nation in a wave of oligarchy. The movie starts immediately right off the bat with barely a hint of conventional contextual setup and introduction of characters. Instead, Che (the film) and Soderbergh expects the audience to know who the people are and which side they're on; perhaps not the events of the film as he tells them to the audience on his own behalf, but it certainly indicates the type of audience which he is recommending this film be seen by.

That audience is one not just willing and interested to learn more about this iconic and influential revolutionary and historical leader but also one who can appreciate the angle which Soderbergh is going for. We've commented upon Che's highly unorthodox approach to the genre of biopic, and through this the movie demands a crowd who can respect such cinematic technique and the intricate technical aspects which make Che such a diverse and dynamic film. This can be seen as a leading innovator in the biopic genre and an example of brilliant combination of mainstream and art-house film techniques, with much more focus on the latter, naturally. But the point is, Che is a movie which is dazzlingly unique, so impressive from how it operates and the way it chooses to do so and just such a fine, fine film.

What's more, the movie is so beautifully, brilliantly and breathtakingly shot that we sit gob-smacked at the aesthetic of The Argentine more than the enthrallment of the story on quite a few occasions. Soderbergh's and cinematographer Peter Andrews' sustained use of hand-held cameras immerses us in a cinéma vérité style environment which is both beneficial and most apt during intimate scenes, dialogue driven scenes and immersive, frenetic battle scenes. The latter, most especially, are filmed with a continued sense of closeness to the characters which continues to thrive on the titles of a biopic more than a war or action film. Interspersed with this early military campaign are scenes of Che's addressing of the United Nations in another timeline  they are shot in beautiful black-and-white and reinvigorate the film.

Now don't get me wrong but there is inference as to why Che: Part One has not attained a much higher score. Despite all this praise which we can easily direct to all parts of the film, the impact which we would desire from painting the portrait of such an influential figure is, for the most part, missing. Perhaps it's due to Soderbergh and screenwriter Peter Buchman's decision not to show any of our title characters' negative traits whatsoever and only paint him as an heroic figure fighting for the good of the people  like a Robin Hood figure, so to speak, even though that this is something of a distortion. So in terms of historical accuracy Che falters and ultimately that leads to the dearth and want of something a little more cerebral and provocative rather than an exercise in cinematic and narrative technique, however laudable that is.

But it is clear that the positives far outweigh the negatives and are unable to fully incapacitate the film. The technical merit which does manage to mould a story cohesive, structured and absorbing is more than enough to get The Argentine across the line. And of course we cannot forget about Benicio Del Toro, who plays Che Guevara with a subdued and dormant zeal which should set a benchmark for any performance in film which does not and need not rely on bombast or bravado. This is a very fine movie here. It is not one of Soderbergh's most successful efforts and it might not reach the echelons of the best films of the year, but the movie's good enough to enamour us and at least compel us to award it an honourable mention.

7.5/10


Pretty accurate account of the both greatly admired and violently despised, depending on which side of the fence your sitting on, legendary Cuban, even though he's from Argentina, revolutionary leader Commandante Ernesto Che Guevara, Benicio Del Toro.

The film "Che" starts with Che Guevera on the verge of addressing the UN on the afternoon of December 11, 1964 in his first official trip to the USA as a Representative of the Cuban Government. We see Che being interviewed by CBS TV reporter Lisa Howard, Julia Ormond, about how he and his good friend and now Cuban Premier Fidel Castro, Demian Bichir, were able to pull off the impossible! In them taking over Cuba against overwhelming odds in just two short and bitter years of bloody hit and run guerrilla fighting. The movie switches from high contrast and newsreel-like black and white to vivid color as were shown the circumstances that lead Che, as well as Fidel, to the exalted positions that they now occupy.

It wasn't an easy climb to the top that's for sure as we see Che together with Fidel Castro and about 80 Cuban Revolutionaries hit the beaches of South-Western Cuba, on the morning of December 2 1956, from their rusty dinky and leaking boat "The Gramna". Before they know it Castro's men were ambushed by Bitista's-the then Cuban Dictator-soldiers with only about a dozen, including Che & Fidel, surviving the carnage. Short of men arms and ammunition the Cuban Revolutionaries, calling themselves "The July 26th Movement", in a series of hit and run attacks, brilliantly planned and executed by Che, against the Cuban Government troops establish a foothold in the impassable Sierra Maestra Mountains. It's in the Sierra Maestra's where the revolutionaries gain in strength by recruiting the local peasants, who have no use for Bitista, into their now swelling ranks.

It's now the late fall of 1958 and Che-now Fidel Castro's right-hand man-despite his acute asthmatic condition, he's always falling behind and passing out during the fighting because of it, ends up leading his men to victory in the final stages of the Cuban Revolution. Bitista and his cronies in the government army and Cuban police seeing that the end is near, with them facing long prison terms or the firing squad, flee the country just before New Year's Eve 1959. It's between these flashbacks that we get to see what is considered by many to be Che Guevara's finest moment! Standing at the podium of the UN that just hours before was almost hit by a bazooka shell, that landed harmlessly in the East River, fired by anti-Castro Cubans Che laid out the principles behind the Cuban Revolution that he was so proud to be part of. Like it or not Che's flamboyant and no holds barred, in his dedication to foment revolution all across the South American Continent, even had his most bitter critics, among the UN delegates, stand up and cheer!

The movie "Che" tries to be neutral in what it wants us to think of Che but comes across a bit disingenuous in overlooking, or air brushing out, most of the serious accusations of lynch mob-like show trials and summery executions, of members and supporters of the now ousted Bitista Regime, by Castro & Che's out of control guerrilla army that-in early 1959-were floating around at the time! The film "Che" stopped short or ended just as, which they were comically known back in those days, the "Smith Brothers" Castro & Che took power as well as revenge against their defeated enemies. It's then that Castro Che & Co. showed their true colors, Deep Commie Red, in what they planned for the Cuban people that they just "liberated". A Soviet style dictatorship that was just as repressive and brutal as the one that they just replaced!


A problem that some people might have with this movie is that it isn't the pop biopic that Oliver Stone would have made of it. It isn't an amalgamation of ideological heroism, Guevara- pathos, biased historic analysis and explosions. It's more of a small very down-to-earth guerrilla movie, a small war movie if you like, and most of all very indie. The story telling isn't very linear, sometimes it seems like a bunch of scenes put together. but it manages very well to suck you into the Cuban civil war. It doesn't make you think a lot about politics. If it would have, Soderbergh would have became a persona non Grata back in the states by now for having made a Marxist propaganda flick. It shows you how the guerrilla war worked, how the rules of command were and how insistent they were on winning the battle. Really great movie experience.


Don't be surprised if you find Part1 confusing; I certainly did.

Obviously, a Spanish-only film will be unappealing to anyone uncomfortable with subtitles, while other-language speakers will rely too heavily on those subtitles and be forced to miss any continuity in Soderbergh's disruptive time-shifts.

Part1 is particularly offensive at this, because he leaves out far more story than he includes, and because he contextualizes events so poorly while intruding his "edgy" style of flashbacks and flash-forwards. Viewers are left like Eddie Murphy listening to James Brown records: "What the F did I just miss? -Sabbadie-dubba!"(said James Brown).

Prior to the final version's English voice-overs re-recorded by Benicio (helpfully less irritating than dubbing), Part1 presented unnecessary impediments, such as the fearfully episodic nature of Soderbergh's scenes, the lack of audience preparation (preamble) for things that are about to happen, while any chosen events are so minimally and Latino-centrically portrayed, that we really do feel like Eddie Murphy.

The real problem with the Latino-centrism is that once we get used to it, we really become distrustful of the veracity and future consequences that the English-spoken interviews and flash-forwards represent. That is, Soderbergh WASTES any possible context with his disruptive and alienated English-speakers, yet they are the only real help on offer.

The rest of Che hacking jungle and battling ill-discipline amongst his "troops" just makes for way too much cinema verite (no perspective) as it remains an insufficient exploration of Che's reasons, or of the political effect he was having wherever he went.

There is also--and this is the big giveaway about who this epic was made for--no hindsight critique of either Che himself, nor crucially of the manipulated peasants who eventually sell him out to their own government.

Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.

The Sydney Film Festival version sported even more irritants, since eradicated:

A) way too many blue filter shots (poor man's day-for-night, last used in C-grade Westerns);

B) illegible, jittery subtitles yanked off too quickly, supposedly "compensating" for his unremitting Spanish; and

C) no helpful Benicio voice-over at all.

Both early and final release versions still have no opening credits so the audience has no idea whom/what to expect--making it such a triumph when we recognize the never (EVER) credited Matt Damon as a young priest shot mid-distance; and Soderbergh's nom-de-plume photographer credit of "Peter Andrews".

So what's with all this HIDING, Mr Soderbergh? Could it be that he's abashed by his altering style, feeling a little clumsy, perhaps? Jeezus, he reminds me of Billy the talented-but-crazy indie director on "Entourage" who made his career-killing stinker biopic on the show about...wait for it...Pablo Escobar. Pretty close.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) correctly observed that Part1 is "uneven" (and HOW), while Part2 "goes rapidly downhill" from there, charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia "in excruciating detail".

For me, there's only 3 good things in Che Part1: i) Benicio DelToro's casting, and his marvelous PRIMARY makeup job--but not his bizarre, integrally terrible graying wriggler in Pt2--Benicio's leanness and beard are astonishingly close to some rather unflattering photos of Che; ii) Seeing Che soberly and meaningfully address the UN in 1964 as Cuba's post-revolutionary Minister of Economics; and iii) the scope of the battle of Santa Clara (near the end of Pt1).

That's it.

So I concur wholeheartedly with David Stratton that "(Soderbergh's) pace is deliberately slow, characterizations kept to a minimum" (as if the director hadn't known what these should be used for); "the action, such as it is, plods along withOUT a visible dramatic arc, and...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".

Turgid, Mr Soderbergh, turgid.

The director's only defense can be that he didn't make this movie for us living in the non-Cuban/non-Bolivian sectors of the planet. No, he must think we don't/shouldn't need this. Instead, his awful "epic"-in-name-only had to just pretend to NOT be boring cinema verite so the remaining illiterate Latino peasants of the world would go see it. Soderbergh must be hoping they might finally feel vindicated/satisfied seeing the unadorned, unexpurgated truth about how/why Che was so expeditiously killed in Bolivia.

I just hope THEY liked it.(4/10)


look elsewhere. Those looking for an exceptionally well made docudrama about the battle for Santa Clara and the time Che spent in Bolivia look no further. The performances, photography, score and direction are superlative. But seeking answers as to why Che became a guerrilla fighter, his family life and any psychological underpinnings regarding his love of Marxism will have to be found somewhere else. The film is rather a straight forward re-creation of some battles fought hard and won (or lost) in the foundation of modern Cuba and late 60's Bolivia. Those worried about being brainwashed needn't worry. There is both bitter humor and irony in this film which will satisfy both sides of the spectrum. This review is for both parts of the film. They're equally brilliant.


I always say that I can tell whether a movie is going to be great or bad just by watching the first 5 mins.

Well, this one seriously failed that test. Most of the five mins was spent on a map of Cuba set to some god awful music with just place names indicated that we are gonna forget immediately.

As the movie progressed, even though I longed to find out something about this guy, I wasn't getting much at all.

So much time wasted on pointless shots and dialog of people saying "hi" to each other in Spanish and getting sick.

As I'm getting old and didn't care about a single one of the boring characters I had to turn it off. I made it about 50 mins I think. Nothing happened, nothing even looked like it was gonna happen. I'm too old to waste X hours on this drivel, so as usual I head to IMDb to check out the ratings.

Much to my surprise its a high rating, and there are pages of good reviews. Only when I got to the last few pages did I find people who agree with me that this film is drivel.

So, come on, all you others you think it sucks, please speak up now :-)

Guess I'll have to check out Wikipedia to find out what this guy really did. It'll be much quicker.


Both parts of this series were ridiculously good IMO. They were directed, acted, written, researched with what seems bordering on obsession of perfection.

That being said...why the hate? It seems this is about as good a film you can make and not get any academy recognition for it. We're more than happy to reward the standard George Clooney acting genius that rivets us (Syriana, Micheal Clayton, Up in the the Air), the display of excessive violence and insanity (There will be Blood) or the Tragic Heartfelt Love that overcomes poverty (Slumdog Millionaire) But for some reason, we seem unwilling to reward movies that are superbly made simply because WE personally don't find their message appealing to our emotions.

This story is told almost flawlessly. The only movie I can think of that accomplishes their story better is the Shawshank Redemption.

The look into Che is also a contrast to American assumptions (especially today when everyone is clamoring about how we're becoming a communist state)


As such a controversial figure, reviewers and film critics everywhere are completely unable to part with their own convictions while reviewing this work of art, as audiences are while (not) watching it.

Irrespective of beliefs or opinions on the historical character of Che, i don't remember the last movie that felt as immersive as this one. Soderbergh's choices of camera angles, perspective, lighting and all the cinematic aspects give you a permanent first person angle in the action that is so involving that you actually die with Che in the end of the second movie...

In this sense, also knowing how Che's story ends, and regretfully waiting for it to come, proves to be an exercise in death as his own life was, accepting it in many forms with clear revolutionary ideals, fighting to the death against oppression and "sheephood" in a way that simply doesn't exist anymore. If anything, it elicits the need for an idealism long absent in mankind, and above all, the ultimate stand on collective thinking, for all that's good and bad about it.

The first movie feels like it had probably an hour or so of footage that was cut off, abbreviated. The second one has smoother transitions, so i guess that actually the story had to be depicted in a non linear, sort of summarized way to avoid the running time reaching 6hs... So one thing that disturbs me about the first part is that it feels like just an introduction to the Bolivian Diaries, and that it by itself could have resulted in a 2 part movie, since there is actually more happening surrounding the Cuban revolution than in the failed Bolivian attempt. And i think this is where Soderbergh stopped short on his convictions, he could have easily made this a trilogy, which with the same vocabulary and stylistic approach, would have brought up a broader view on Che and history itself.

All in all, this movie is a work of art, playing like a symphony (a bit fractured in the first part though), immersive from the first minute to the last. Coupled with the acting, where Benicio del Toro -is- Che, this is a highly underrated movie in America, where the terrorist witch hunt and the cold war that rages on in the heads of small minded people prevented it from grossing over US$ 300.000.


Contrary to how it appears on IMDb I saw the film in its correct order and enjoyed this, the first half, more than the second half because it was not as gritty nor as fundamentally sad. I enjoyed watching the Cuban Revolution unfold and I enjoyed seeing a movie about events I remember only from television. It is very hard now to see Castro in New York City addressing the UN. I can remember him being received as almost a movie star on that visit and to see Sonderbergh treat that event, as well as the entire revolution, so even handed was excellent film making to me. I can easily understand why the conservative commenter's get so worked up about Hollywood and the supposed leftist leanings of the entire city. They conveniently forget the pabulum regularly dished out by Disney because by omitting that studio it makes it much easier to blanket the entire movie industry. I found this first part of Che most interesting and I saw glimpses of the national divide that would play, in my opinion, such a major role in part two. I had always thought that because South American countries, with the exception of Brazil, speak Spanish then it seemed that national boundaries would play only a minor role; but as becomes clear in part two that is most certainly not the case. I think Soderbergh steered an extremely tight course through the rapids of politics in this film. It could easily have become politicised because of the inflammatory nature of the subject matter but I believe he delivered an extremely even-handed film about a most difficult topic.


i remember when i first played this game years ago. i think it's a great game and anyone who's into FPS games should play at least one rainbow six edition.

The graphics, sound and dialog are great. the controls, once learned, are easily mastered and employed in the game. In the heat of battle you get some people who flip out, charge the bad guys, or just wimp out and run. so when shots are fired you never know whats going to happen. another good thing is that the tangos are always in different locations so you can't run through it after playing the level a few times.

the only quams i have is that the AI is too stupid sometimes. tangos can sneak up behind and if one team ember in the middle sees him but the others don't he will open fire regardless and mow down the whole team, and most of the time missing the bad guy. another thing is if you stop in tight quarters, like on stairs, and you gotta turn around. you have to kill about half of them before they budge. i think this was fixed in the sequals

all in all this is a great game and it deserves high ratings


Once I had read the Tom Clancy's novel RAINBOW SIX, I always looked for this rare video-game title in all software shops arond my town. When it finally arrived as a pay-less version, it has been TANGO DOWN!I read, somewhere, that must be also a motion picture in production, based upon the Clancy's Novel. The plot is quite simple: this is an action videogame just like DOOM, but is a bit different. RAINBOW is an international SWAT team, composed by the brightest counter-terrorism agents from all-over the world to fight terrorism wherever on the planet. It all starts with a hostage situation at the British embassy in London, where RAINBOW team is called to intervene... and then, various missions, most of them based on the original novel's situations, and a secret, deadly plot comes out from behind this sudden terrorism wave. The way to play is here: you choose the weapons, the equipments and the men, you can made a plan, and you got to accomplish mission, such as defuse bombs, rescue and escort hostages... you CAN KILL TERRORISTS, OF COURSE, BUT THEY ALSO CAN KILL YOU, OR YOUR TEAM MEMBERS, OR THE HOSTAGES, so you must TOOK CARE... when the character that you're using dies, you get the control of another team member since they're all gone (you loose) or the mission is accomplished (you win), but you also loose if hostages are killed, or the bomb explodes, it depends from the mission. THIS IS THE FATHER OF ALL TACTICAL GAMES. Two Thumbs Up!


Rated T for Violence.

I got Rainbow Six a couple of years ago for a cheap price.I didn't really like this game.Rainbow Six is a fairly overrated game in my opinion.Its hard.I had this game for years and I am still stuck on the second level.The first level was pretty fun and had a fair amount of action.The graphics were great for 1998.However this game I thought was pretty hard and overrated.If you see Rainbow Six for a very cheap price buy it but by cheap I mean under $9.99.I have not played the other Tom Clancy games.

7/10


It is not as much a study of eroticism as it is one man's erotic fantasy about the battle between the sexes

A rich, horny Italian (Mastroianni) meets a woman on a train When the train stops, he follows her into a lonely wood, which becomes a futuristic world of forceful women who have almost entirely destroyed completely all men in their society

Mastroianni's character is left alive as a curiosity piece His experiences carry him deeper and deeper into this bizarre fantasy city The film never fully provides passion and erotic lusts, but is tickling and stimulating pleasantly none the less... Fellini's pointthat women resent the fact that men are easily excitedis most effectively carried by Donatella Damiani, a buxom and very beautiful young actress who runs nearly naked throughout the movie

Although the film never tires, it never quite completes its erotic expectations either, giving priority to consider carefully its own bizarre reality It has elements of science fiction and adventure, but is more exactly a fantasy on the estrangement between men and women...


A few weeks ago, I posted a review of 8½, presently my undisputed Number 1 favourite movie. Still on the subject of Il Maestro, I've recently rewatched City of Women. This is another Fellini movie I'd watched many years ago, in my late teens, and didn't like at all back then. Well, I liked it (with reservations) this time. La città delle donne is one of the most robust, unrepressed and rough-around-the-edges explorations of the specifically Latin nature of machismo, feminism, gender rivalry and sexual politics I have ever seen. Many people don't like La città delle donne, but like 8½ and most Fellini movies of the later period it has an extraordinary, instinctive grasp of the rhythm and symbolic power of dreams. Its irritating aspect is coupled with and impossible to separate from the grasp it has upon the potency of what our psyche hides in among its hidden, ancestral folds - in this case, Marcello Mastroianni's character's but also our very own. This movie worms its way into your own psyche in time - as with other Fellini movies, it seems to reveal scenes that are totally new and surprising, yet strangely familiar to me even though I've never seen them before. As if I'd always been familiar with them, perhaps from a previous life - Fellini seems able to tap into a universal psychic blueprint of the soul, I think that's what it is - only a true Genius could do something like this. He gets to the emotional core of human experience, which means that even though I was never a young man who went to a brothel in 1930s Italy, as he has, there is something of the experience that I can relate to, as if it were universal. I guess the fact that things are rarely LITERALLY represented in his later movies (post-La Dolce Vita), also contributes towards this, making everything more symbolic and hence, universal.

But Città delle donne is also a shrill, over-the-top movie, grating in some ways, ridiculous, dated in others. Character-wise, Marcello is probably at his most repulsive... or perhaps I should say pathetic. But the movie, though flawed and a rehash of some other familiar Fellini themes treated more successfully elsewhere, is also delightful in parts, with a power in the use of visual symbols that I have rarely seen before, even in his own, more overall successful movies. For instance, the whole sequence in Dr Xavier Katzone's grotesque house, especially the mausoleum-like tunnel containing what is essentially the "essence" of his numerous past conquests, as well as the scenes of Marcello floating on the very originally-shaped "hot air balloon", Marcello being chased by the drugged-up teenage girl bullies in their squeaky old jalopies, etc - all scenes I won't be forgetting in a hurry.

If one really finds nothing to like in La città delle donne, it's ultimately still an important document on the gender battles that recent humanity has crossed. Perhaps Italy began these a decade or two later than, for instance, Northern European nations, but it got there eventually and in its own special, culturally individual way that can be compared to no other, since Italian men and women are not German or British or Swedish. Fellini pays tribute to that very Italian type of battle of the sexes here, stereotype-free but ever so evocatively. I have never delighted more in the never-obvious send-up of machismo as with this movie. This may be lost on non-Italian speakers but even the man's name, Katzone, is a phonetic rendering of the vulgar Italian word for... er... "big (male) genitals"! I give La città delle donne a 7½ out of 10 - I would have given it an 8 if it hadn't irritated me with its excesses in certain parts. Oh, what the hell - let's give it an 8/10!