One of the only reasons I even gave this film a 6 out of 10 was for its beautiful scenery and, at times, excellent acting. Let's face it, Garcia Bernal is just pretty, too. But I was surprised to see what a high rating this film received from the viewing body of IMDb, with whom I usually agree.
The film purports to tell the story of a young Che Guevara, based on a book by the man of the same title. however, the book tells a significantly grimier tale of their constantly broken down motorcycle, frequent sexual liaisons, and plenty of drinking. This film has some of all that, but it inevitably returns to Che's good nature and long-lasting love for the woman he left behind, eventually it seems, for the good of the people he wants to help.
Did this not reek of Hollywood sentimentalism to other viewers?? Che is portrayed as someone who can seemingly do no wrong in the movie, while even in his depiction of himself in his book, he is no such angel. There are many scenes in the movie in which he is seen being overwhelmed by the nice people around him who all seemingly love him and him just standing there dumbly smiling.
Two more things. One, his big feat at the end of the movie, swimming across the river, is flawed both symbolically and as a physical act. He is not swimming across to the island with the lepers for any particular purpose, unlike his very clear purposes in his revolutionary actions. All the people on both sides eventually cheer him on, but what for? He's not doing it for any reason! Why do they really care! Probably because Garcia Bernal, like Guevara, is a very attractive man. That's not a good enough reason though. And physically, he's swimming across a river, another biiiiiig deal kind of feat, not the kind of thing the hero does at the end to make the viewer see how incredible he is.
And the ending! He overtly says to his friend that "he needs to do a lot of thinking. The people, they need help." There was assuredly no such 30 seconds of realization in Che, especially when saying goodbye to his good friend for a long time. This also brought out the awful stench of Hollywood-esquire sentimental crap, trying to get the viewer to say "Oh, it's Che! He did all sorts of revolutionary stuff! And this is him transitioning!", instead of what was probably more realistic, which would be to leave that out.
NOT good enough a film to be in the IMDb top 250, and really, barely a 6.
The film purports to tell the story of a young Che Guevara, based on a book by the man of the same title. however, the book tells a significantly grimier tale of their constantly broken down motorcycle, frequent sexual liaisons, and plenty of drinking. This film has some of all that, but it inevitably returns to Che's good nature and long-lasting love for the woman he left behind, eventually it seems, for the good of the people he wants to help.
Did this not reek of Hollywood sentimentalism to other viewers?? Che is portrayed as someone who can seemingly do no wrong in the movie, while even in his depiction of himself in his book, he is no such angel. There are many scenes in the movie in which he is seen being overwhelmed by the nice people around him who all seemingly love him and him just standing there dumbly smiling.
Two more things. One, his big feat at the end of the movie, swimming across the river, is flawed both symbolically and as a physical act. He is not swimming across to the island with the lepers for any particular purpose, unlike his very clear purposes in his revolutionary actions. All the people on both sides eventually cheer him on, but what for? He's not doing it for any reason! Why do they really care! Probably because Garcia Bernal, like Guevara, is a very attractive man. That's not a good enough reason though. And physically, he's swimming across a river, another biiiiiig deal kind of feat, not the kind of thing the hero does at the end to make the viewer see how incredible he is.
And the ending! He overtly says to his friend that "he needs to do a lot of thinking. The people, they need help." There was assuredly no such 30 seconds of realization in Che, especially when saying goodbye to his good friend for a long time. This also brought out the awful stench of Hollywood-esquire sentimental crap, trying to get the viewer to say "Oh, it's Che! He did all sorts of revolutionary stuff! And this is him transitioning!", instead of what was probably more realistic, which would be to leave that out.
NOT good enough a film to be in the IMDb top 250, and really, barely a 6.