Che! (1969)

Simply Perfect

Fantastic!

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Someone mentioned this flick the other day and boy, did it bring back memories! "Che!" clearly deserves a place all its own in any discussion of entertainingly bad movies. It's totally unconscious though, because this is a genuine and heartfelt liberal tribute to good old Ernesto, with lots of Hollywood contrivance mixed in. I'm biased because I never bought a Che T-shirt or admired Fidel Castro. I'm pretty sure that without the USSR's timely checkmating of the USA, these two clowns would've been consigned to history's garbage heap in a couple years at the most. Years ago, I read an excellent book about the guy (Max Gomez) who tracked Che down so that the Bolivian Army could shoot him. He was a Cuban expatriate who ended up in the US Army and the CIA. He had quite a different take on Che and Fidel than all those drug-addled American/European teens and intellectuals did. Apparently, Communist revolutionaries have an extremely ruthless viewpoint and a very unsentimental way of doing business. Che looked great on a poster, but his spoiled admirers would not have enjoyed him in person. Or he them. When production of "Che!" was announced, right-wingers and Che-worshipers were both infuriated, albeit for opposite reasons. The hard right was upset that Communists would be glamorized, and Che fans were positively livid that the legend of their sainted icon would be desecrated. But the story goes that when the flick came out, it was so bad and so boring that both sides immediately lost interest in their indignation.Anyway, back to the movie. Jack Palance is the greatest, but his portrayal of Fidel must be seen to be believed. Mr. Palance never had a reputation for being fun-loving, but I swear he's always on the verge of cracking up and is struggling to keep it together the entire time. He probably didn't have a choice, because the script is so absurd that it was impossible to take seriously. Omar Sharif just wheezes and gasps during all his screen time, in order to emphasize Che's real-life asthma. Seriously, that's it. He just pants like an obscene phone caller the whole movie and displays zero charisma, which I assume the real Che must've had at least some of. I guess the filmmakers thought that scenes of Che struggling to overcome his asthma and still being so dynamic added tremendous drama to Omar's role. "Che!" also features the inimitable Woody Strode and the immortal Sid Haig as henchmen, and they both do their usual fine work. The funny thing is, nobody even attempts a Hispanic accent, or else they give it a half-a***d try and waver back and forth. There are some odd "interviews" interspersed throughout, which are meant to imply a documentary feel, but they're as disconcertingly comical as the rest of the flick. One character gives a long speech and then actually looks directly into the lens and implores: "Please don't tell anyone I said any of this!" Good stuff.It's available on Amazon instant video, but DVD's are almost certainly non-existent. It's still pretty hilarious, same as I remembered. But I bet it's even better in a group setting, with inebriated viewers. I gave it 1 star, purely on face value, but as unintentional comedy it deserves 10 stars.

I really don't get it. Why was this movie so badly received? I admit I don't know much about movie-making, I'm just a plain movie lover. But all the reason given here by other users seem to me untrue.First, the historical facts. There is not much of it that I notice to be false. There is, of course, a personal viewpoint by the director, but isn't that why Oliver Stone (for example) is regarded a great director? Then, the acting. Omar Sharif was, in my opinion, better in this role than in most of the others. And Jack Palance was really a great actor, capable of a great variety of roles. He may be doing some impersonating here, but why wouldn't he? Some people say that the movie is idolizing Che. What? Considering he is a legend, even nowadays, this is a very objective view on his life. Castro's role in the revolution is probably understated, but I suppose it had to be done or otherwise the film would never pass the censors.It seems to me that most of the reviewers saw what the critics said, and then formed their own opinions before even giving the movie a chance. It is certainly not perfect, but I find it definitely worth a watch.

Richard Fleischer's biopic about the eponymous Argentinian revolutionary has been widely known as one of the biggest embarrassments in cinema history. Watching "Che!", I didn't interpret it as a particularly bad movie. What it is: extremely corny. As I understand it, the movie is historically accurate. It's just that, aside from all the overacting, Omar Sharif as Che Guevara looks silly and Jack Palance as Fidel Castro always looks as if he's about to fall asleep. In fact, Fidel adopts Che's comments as his own, just like Daffy Duck does with Porky Pig's suggestion in "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century"! There has been news of Steven Soderbergh's upcoming biopic about Che Guevara, with Benicio Del Toro playing the role. It'll probably come out better than this one. This mostly functions as an example of a movie intended as serious coming out really funny. Worth seeing for that.Also starring Cesare Danova (Mayor Carmine in "Animal House"), Woody Strode and Barbara Luna.

How could this movie work as a factual representation or artistic vision?1) it comes at the height of an anti-Castro obsession this country had and in many ways, still does (see, the US liked the harshly oppressive Cuban Government that preceded Castro, because we were allowed to profit from it's fascism). The very tagline of the movie shows one of it's main objectives - to paint Castro or at least his economic model as cartoonish villainy.2) The Hollywood of the time not wanting to go to the risk of having actual Cubans or even people of closely related nationalities in the leading roles, we have very American leading men doing laughable Cuban impressions. Jack Palance as Fidel Castro? Thankfully this tradition has broken so we never saw Nicholas Cage as Malcom X.3) Facts are of no concern to the filmmakers.It does, however, have my recommendation - as a spectacle (it is an interesting one), but hardly as a decent piece of cinema.