Che! (1969) User Reviews

Not as wretched as reputed, but good for a few laughs

[wjfickling · 6/10 · 14 May 2002]

This film was almost hooted into oblivion by the critics at the time of its release, so when I saw it on one of the Cinemax channels last night, I was surprised that it wasn't much worse. A few months ago I saw the highly acclaimed docudrama on Fidel on Showtime, and this film, while not as good as the Showtime drama, is not all that much worse either.

First the bad stuff. Jack Palance's portrayal of Fidel Castro must rank as one of the worst performances ever to appear on screen. During the first half of the film, he spends most of the time rolling a lit cigar around in his mouth and making weird facial grimaces, most of which he seems to have forgotten by the second half. Moreover, he makes Castro come across as a dim-witted doofus who is always helped to see the right course by the brilliant Che, rather than portraying Castro as the brilliant strategist and tactician he was. Secondly, although the film is in English, much of the spoken dialogue sounds like a dubbed movie. Maybe that's because one of the principal supporting actors is Italian.

That having been said, the film's history is, quite surprisingly, fairly accurate. It accurately depicts how Castro's forces were almost completely wiped out after the arrival from Mexico, and Castro was left with a force numbering less than twenty. Nevertheless, he survives and gradually wins the support of the peasants, so that eventually he has a guerrilla force numbering in the thousands. The fact that Guevara was unable to pull off the same feat in Bolivia, due largely to his own megalomania that prevented his listening to the Bolivian peasants, is accurately portrayed as well. This isn't available on video and isn't likely to come to a theater, so you can probably see it only on cable. If it comes along, it's worth a watch.

Does a bad job at telling a story.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 5/10 · 27 May 2011]

Reason why this movie doesn't ever work out as a good one is because it really has no story to tell, or it at least seems that way, due to the entire way this movie got done and told.

Just don't watch this movie expect to learn anything. While watching this movie you'll have no idea what Che and his buddies are all fighting for and what they want to achieve, if you know nothing to little about Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution. Perhaps this can be blamed on the fact that this is an 1969 movie. Only 2 years after Che's death, so his story was still fresh back in the minds of the audiences at time. Therefore the movie perhaps felt no need to ever explain anything or to go into detail. But this movie was already much hated back in its day, so of course there is plenty more wrong with this movie.

Not only the story won't learn you anything but you also won't learn a thing about the person Che. Nothing in this movie justifies why he is globally regarded still such an icon, since the movie doesn't show anything great or heroic that he ever achieved and his personality in his movie is just very bland as well.

I can't really blame Omar Sharif for it though, while many other still seem to do so. In my opinion the blame should be put with its writing and directing. The story is already bad to begin with by the entire way it gets told makes it all the more worse.

What I also really didn't like about the storytelling was the random insertion of random people narration the events straight into the cam, as if this was a documentary. It comes across as incredibly cheap and lame, also since often the actors just aren't the greatest ones.

Even Jack Palance is real bad in his role. He is supposed to play Fidel Castro but instead he seems more like a caricature of him. And to be frank, he made Castro come across like an idiot. Perhaps this all was intentional though, for propaganda reasons.

The way this movie got shot and all of its action really reminded me of a "The A-Team" episode. I of course love "The A-Team" but this doesn't really seem like a compliment for a movie that tries to tell a serious, historically relevant story.

Perhaps the movie is not as bad to watch as its reputation might suggest but still it's truly really far from a good movie.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

a comment about 1969's "Che!"

[zibimba · 5/10 · 12 October 2005]

I saw this picture many years ago at its premiere and I never had a chance to see it again, but I would like to say something about it. First of all, Richard Fleischer is a distinguished director. See, for instance, "The Vikings", maybe the best adventure movie ever, or "Compulsion", a thrilling and alluring criminal drama. The problem with "Che!" is that it deals with too many facts and subjects in the while of 80 or 90 minutes. A lot of things are kept off-screen. Besides,the actors are completely unsuitable and the screenplay is poor. Characters and History itself is unfold in a distorted manner; so that, people who know a bit about Cuban Revolution fall disappointed. The movie grows better in the second half when Che tries to lead a guerrilla party in Bolivia. I still remember the last sequence showing a bedraggled and crippled Guevara, minutes before his decease, sitting on the floor of a schoolroom. A Bolivian Army officer calls in a village goat-herder , points towards wretched Guevara and asks the peasant : "Can't you see ? he has come here to free you!" The herder seems astonished, stares at the two men for a while and utters at last :"To free me ??? Since these people have shown up, shooting haphazardly, the goats have grown frightened , their milk dried and we have nothing to feed our children! So ... is this to free us ?" Next, Guevara raises and walks lamely towards the wall outside the door. Before him a firing squad is waiting. I don't know why, but I always fancy Guevara's last stand as depicted in this ill-fated flick.

A major miscalculation on every level

[Wizard-8 · 28 September 2003]

If you are determined to see CHE! no matter what, I highly suggest you first pick up and read a good book about the man, Fidel Castro, and the Cuban revolution itself. Otherwise, you'll be utterly confused. The movie starts with the rebel invasion of Cuba, without giving us any idea about what Che had been doing up to that point of time. (Like: Why was he convinced to follow Castro?) We also don't really see what the political situation was exactly like in Cuba at the time. (How can we understand the rebels if we don't know what they are fighting against?) The movie continues to be confusing by subsequently not making it clear just how the rebels were able to build in force after being almost completely wiped out... or just how exactly they were able to weaken the government forces... or how Che transformed from a weakling into a strong leader (it seems to happen overnight!)... or why exactly Che got tired of being in Cuba.

The subsequent unfolding events do get somewhat clearer once Che gets to Bolivia and starts his doomed campaign there, but you still don't understand the man. And with Richard Fleischer at the helm - a director who was usually only as good as his script - the movie sinks deeper into badness. The fact that Fleischer shows a complete inablility to film action scenes is just the least of his problems.

And talk about miscasting! Omar Sharif as Che?!? He looks understandably confused and cowed in the role - deadly for someone who was reportedly a charismatic and cunning leader. But his performance is brilliant next to that of Jack Palance. Palance is unbelievably goofy as Castro, who was a strong leader in his own right. Reports at the time of filming state that Palance asked that Castro's "buffoonery" in the script be changed. Apparently that didn't happen. I can imagine that Palance subsequently decided to take revenge by hamming things up, especially since he also stated to the press after filming that he regretted ever being involved in this production.

Oy!

[Mister-6 · 1/10 · 31 August 1999]

If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).

But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!".

Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.

All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation....

Like I said, if you want a good laugh.

It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.

One star.

I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?

Is it just me, or does this movie abound with gay subtext?!

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 21 September 2008]

CHE! is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film. It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid "true stories" relayed by a variety of yutzes.

This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted. However, what I have found most interesting about the film is its apparent gay subtext. Instead of Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro working towards a Communist Cuba, they seem to be more of a gay couple--with Che behaving coy and aloof and Fidel as the ardent suitor! Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che "Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!". I am not sure if the studio intended this homosexual undercurrent, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize it! I am very surprised that the other reviewers didn't point this out. However, if you remember this when you watch the film, it makes viewing much more exciting and even funnier.

A final note. In recent years, Che has been very chic--even a fashion statement with hoards of brain-dead teens, who have no idea who he was, wearing shirts emblazoned with his face. Considering he was a cold-blooded killer and nihilist (an odd combination for a doctor), this new reverence for the man is gross. What will they do next, put Hitler or Dr. Mengele on T-shirts and posters?!!? Even Communists with consciences should be appalled by the bloodshed Guevara was responsible for and I find it ironic that people with computers are championing a man who might likely have killed them given half a chance!

Considering how stupid and unintentionally funny this movie was, it does nothing to further the message that Guevara was no hero. I would love to see a realistic film done of his life--with the good and the bad but also with dialog and a plot that weren't apparently created by chimps!

A nice fictional story

[ekneba · 1/10 · 5 November 2008]

You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this "freedom fighter" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.

2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.

3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.

4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.

Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.

If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.

And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT.

Sensitive Performance by Sharif Hoists It

[kayaker36 · 7/10 · 27 December 2007]

It was brave of the makers of this film to release it in 1969 when the U.S. war against Communist North Vietnam still raged. It does depict a **failed** attempt to foment revolution in the Third World and on balance it is a negative portrayal of a professional revolutionary. Given the times, any depiction of Guevara and Fidel Castro showing them as human was a bold move.

In the U.S. most publicity has been garnered by Castro's bitterest enemies (those wonderful folks who brought you the **Elian** affair). Fidel has his supporters here, and around the world, also. Many of them seem to have posted comments at this site. The title of this movie is "Che!", not "Fidel!". Naturally, Castro's role will be a secondary one, a decision Castro's supporters seem unable to forgive.

Everyone knows how the story ends, and that is where the movie starts, with Che Guevara's body being transported by helicopter down from the one-room schoolhouse where he was apparently executed after being wounded and captured by an elite unit of the Bolivian Army. It's a strikingly beautiful, almost elegiac shot with the slopes of the Andes stretching to the horizon in the background. The movie proceeds in a semi-documentary style, the story told in flashbacks by Guevara's old Comrades (and some old enemies). Some of the Comrades, visibly aged, give their interviews from prison cells.

While Guevara's early life in Argentina isn't depicted, there is a soundless, striking scene early in the film of Cuban women protesting the dictatorial Battista regime, only to be massacred by Cuban soldiers ("We heard you calling, Cuba and we came...") that well explains what motivated young Ernesto and other youths from Latin America's upper classes to join the Cuban revolutionaries. From there we trace Che's transformation from idealistic medical graduate to hardened guerrilla fighter--summed up in a moment when in the heat of battle he picks up a rifle and leaves his doctor's kit on the ground.

I also disagree with the many criticisms of the portrayal of Fidel Castro by Jack Palance. Palance's movie career was distinctly on the down slope when he accepted the part, but he always had **macho**. Here he captured the 6'4" Castro's dominating physical presence in a land of mostly short statured people.

It is a real pity that this motion picture has completely disappeared. There is not a commercial version of it available anywhere. In the future, perhaps after Omar Sharif has died, this portrait of one of the twentieth century's most charismatic figures will be recognized as the rare achievement it is.

So bad, it's kinda delicious in a decrepit way

[tomreynolds2004 · 1/10 · 5 April 2004]

35 years after this was made, Castro still reigns. Unfortunately, we're left scratching our heads wondering how the dim-witted maniac played by scenery-chewing Jack Palance made it as far as 1960. I stumbled back across this recently, and was amused at noticing the incomparable Sid Haig and "B" movie favorite Paul (Untouchables) Picerni among the rebels. Fleischer was obviously well past his prime when he directed this foolishness. Some of the lines are classic in a "Did he really say that kind of way?' The other thing I just noticed is that the score and the sound (NOT the dialog) are actually excellent -- the only first-rate elements of the entire production. So, don't watch this to learn anything about history or acting, but if you feel like watching this as a goof, bring the beers and have some fun.

Demystification of a Legend!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 18 January 2018]

Another good picture that have bad reputation by IMDB's users, in my humble opinion because the movie show up so clear who really was Che Guevara by Sy Bartlett and David Kapp, this butcher tried made the same thing in Bolivia, but there he wasn't successful with your communist ideas in a peaceful people mostly native indians whom not to easy handling for the get the power, Che Guevara realize in that country didn't have the same conditions to raise a true revolution, then he begining steal the own people who swore protect, this bloody killer was godlike by the reds as hero and later became a legend for those who raise a red flag!! Poor people who believe in BUTCHER like that!!!

Resume:

First watch: 1993 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7

Everyone thinks that Fidel was the Cuban Revolutionaries military genius! Don't You Believe It! It Was CHE!

[sol-kay · 5/10 · 30 August 2006]

Superficial biographical flick about international revolutionary and Castro's second in command Che Guevara, Omar Sharif. The movie gives you the impression that if it wasn't for Che Fidel Castro, Jack Palance, would never have taken over Cuba in what's called the Great Peasant Revolution of 1959. Che, an Argentinian doctor and one-world revolutionary, did in fact land with Castro and his contingent of 82 men off the west coast of Cuba on December 2, 1956.

After being ambushed by Batista's, the Cuban dictator, men only a dozen, including Che & Castro, survived. During the next two years in the Sierra Maestras mountains the dozen revolutionaries grew into the thousands. It was undoubtedly because of the leadership and knowledge of guerrilla tactics and warfare by Che that forced the besieged and defeated Batista to abandon his palace in Havana on New Years Eve 1959 and check out of the country. This left a victorious Castro & Co. to enter the capital city without as much as a shot being fired on New Years Day.

The movie shows how Che became a ruthless and blood-thirsty disciplinarian to the troops. Che as a command-ante is shown without as much as flinching ordering the execution of traitors, many times in the movie doing it himself, that even his leader Fidel didn't have the heart to do. After the Castro take-over of Cuba Che held around the clock military trials and executions of former Batista political and military personal. This even shocked and outraged some of the most battle-hardened Cuban revolutionaries. Che's excuse for his cold-blooded policies was that if he didn't show the people that he was ridding the country of Bitista's war criminals they would do the job for him themselves. This would result in many innocent, far more then those proved guilty by his military tribunals, people ending up being slaughtered by rampaging mindless and vengeful mobs.

The movie "Che" goes on to show that it was Che who gave Fidel Castro the idea of not only declaring himself a Marxist which outraged the United States Government and turned it against him but in establishing diplomatic and military relations with the Soviet Union. This lead to the 1961 fiasco, for the US and Free Cubans, known as "the Bay of Pigs". Were also show that it was Che who planted the idea in Fidel's head to invite the Soviet Union to use Cuba as a base for it's nuclear missiles. This irresponsible action, on Castro and the USSR's part, almost brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the autumn of 1962.

Feeling betrayed by his friend Fidel and his Soviet allies for backing down to the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis Che, calling Castro a Soviet dupe, decided to leave the safety of Cuba and go out in the dangerous hills and valleys of Bolivia to start a revolution of his own. Since in reality Che left for Bolivia in late 1966 or early 1967 the event, in the movie, of Che's break with Castro,in 1962, seems a bit premature.

In Bolivia Che lost his revolutionary persona as well as his ability to rally peasants, like he did in Cuba ten years earlier, to his aid. Going against his own writings and principles about how a guerrilla/revolutionary war should be fought had Che's men, mostly Bolivian rebels, desert him because of his mindless and brutal tactics to whip up both support and recruits among the peasant population.

The hard life as a guerrilla fighter coupled with his deteriorating asthmatic condition, smoking Cuban cigars didn't help Che's asthma either, took a heavy toll on Che's health. Fate eventually caught up with Che as well as the Bolivian army and on October 9, 1967 in an ambush at the Quebrada del Yuro ravine the life-long revolutionary was shot and captured. Later, on orders from the Bolivian high command, Che was executed as if he were just a common criminal not the man who's name became synonymous with world as well as local revolution over the last thirty five years.

More of a curiosity piece then anything else "Che" has it's share of unintentional laughs. Omar Sharif in many of the battle and strenuous jungle mountain climbing scenes in the movie is heard breathing and wheezing, because of his asthma condition, like someone making an obscene phone-call. The final scene when Che's confronted by an elderly Bolivian peasant berating him about how his guerrilla actions in and around his village have caused his goats to cease from giving milk. The scene looks like something straight out of a Mystery Science 3000 parody of an unintentionally and hilariously funny movie.

Jack Palance as Fidel Castro with his fake plastic nose and acting as if he'd be lost without Che makes the guy, Castro, look like a totally helpless dolt as well as alcoholic buffoon. Castro who seems to drink as many bottles of booze as the cigars that he smokes that it's a wonder that he's still around now; some forty after Che left him to run Cuba on his own!

At the time of the movies release in the spring of 1969 there were plans by many Cuban/Americans to demonstrate in front of the movie-houses that were to be playing "Che". It wasn't until after word of mouth, as well as critics reviews, about how awful the film really was that it was decided that "Che" instead of ingratiating Castro's Cuba was in fact the United States revenge for it's defeat by Castro's army and militia at "the Bay of Pigs"!

Omar Sharif brilliant as Che Guevara, Jack Palance less brilliant as Castro but good enough.

[clanciai · 8/10 · 9 October 2015]

It is interesting to note that the film was made only the year after his death. I remember when it was issued - there was very much hush-hush about it, and Richard Fleischer would not publicly reveal the sources of many arguable details of the script. The account is convincing enough, and there has been no protests against any untruthfulness. Omar Sharif as Che makes a convincing character of great controversy and self-contradictoriness, while it is possible at the same time to understand him - why he abandoned the Castro regime as a hopeless case of either becoming a puppet of Russia or of America, to try to make an inter-South-American revolution of his own. Of course, it was utterly unrealistic, which he failed to realize, having no detachment but rather an obsession with any revolution at any cost.

Jack Palance has been criticized for his almost caricature of Castro, but he has made the best of it, Castro was actually like that, and Palance has studied him carefully.

There is nothing wrong with the film as film either. The quality has its flaws, but the direction and cinematic realization is practically flawless.

The greatest credit of the film, though, is the unmasking of Che as the tragic megalomaniac he was, a sick man gone wrong from the beginning and getting stuck in a vicious circle of violence going irrevocably from bad to worse, his pride outgrowing him into arrogance and inhumanity leading only one way into self-destruction, a man obsessed with constantly worsening his own tragedy, made clear enough by Omar Sharif.

In brief, an underrated film of great documentary objectivity charting the psychology of man at his most destructive.

historically awful

[jonathan-577 · 1/10 · 28 May 2009]

The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.

Amusing, but Ridiculous

[Hotoil · 7 June 2001]

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.

Fidel Castro is Duck Dodgers?

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 29 May 2008]

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.

A forgotten classic, an enthralling historical epic.....NOT!!!

[nerdomatic10-937-667230 · 1/10 · 18 April 2013]

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.

A miscalculated failure in almost every way

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 4 March 2015]

To me, Che! is not one of the worst films of the 60s but it is one of the most disappointing, almost every criticism directed at it I agree with. It gets a few plus points for its beautiful scenic landscapes, stirringly rich music and Sid Haig giving a performance of fiery dignity. Unfortunately everything else is a failure.

Well actually the photography was not so bad, it actually looked decent and professional, but it could have been more expansive to give the scenery more character and it doesn't really shake off the 60s TV series look. In the acting stakes only Haig impressed, the rest of the supporting cast have hardly anything to work with and some like Robert Loggia spend their screen time looking annoyed. Omar Sharif's lead performance often is very stiff and a lot of the time he is either emotionless or perplexed. To give credit where he's due, he actually looks the part. Which is more than can be said for Jack Palance, who basically looks like Jack Palance with a fake nose and beard and glasses. His performance is a possible career-worst(even worse than that in Outlaw of Gor), being little more than a buffoonish caricature, chewing the scenery to shreds and I am sure that Fidel Castro in real life didn't behave like this much of an idiot.

The way the characters are written is never compelling and they never come over as real people either, coming over instead as caricatures with the cast attempting and failing to give them life or realism. Che! also has one of the worst-written scripts I've heard in a while for a film, with the dialogue flow and delivery being so stilted that you can't be blamed if you thought dubbing was involved, the actual dialogue being very flowery and with no substance or subtlety at all. The dialogue and blatant and sometimes disturbing "gay" subtext(or what can be seen as such) in the scenes between Guevara and Castro is just embarrassing on the ear. The story is never involving, it feels very episodic and one-sided with a lot of padding, so much so that although the film is 96 minutes long it feels longer. The 4th wall talking into the camera "interviews" were randomly put in and completely misplaced, they seemed to only be there for filler and just confused the storytelling rather than added. The Bolivia segment has a little tension and truth, in an overall story that has very little of either, but only in spades and it's too late. At the end of the day it felt like there was no point in the film being made, it tries to cover a lot but says very little and we learn next to nothing about what made Che Guevara famous and also learn just as little about him as a person as well. Not helped by that the film while mostly one-sided didn't seem to make its mind as to whether we should feel sympathy for Guevara or not.

All in all, not that dire but a miscalculated failure all the same that sees two wholly dependable actors giving very bad performances. 3/10 Bethany Cox

ʀather than a documentary, this is politically motivated movie

[BBroi · 2/10 · 13 January 2012]

What to expect of a "Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment" produced "documentary film" on Che Guevara in 1969? Certainly not the enthusiasm millions of left wing (or pro Latin America) people around the world share for the famous revolutionary until these days, but in this special case even not a sense of objectivity.

Instead, Che! portraits the historical figure as an aggressive, bloodthirsty guerrilla fighter, who steps in to shot (suspected) deserters within the own troops where Fidel Castro hesitates. Or a Che Guevara who prefers sitting in a dark room signing death sentences instead of celebrating the revolution with the masses on the street.

A fairly accurate story, mixed with poorly playing actors, and less South than rather North American perspectives on how the world should be (as an example, in one scene a Bolivian farmer talks in front of Che about the revolutionaries: "(They came) to free me? From what? Nobody asked what I want. Ever since you come to these mountains with your guns and your fighting, my goats, they not make milk. You frightened them. (...) Yes, I want to be free. Free from you..." and then pointing at the present Bolivian officer: "... and from you and all your kind. Why don't you just go away and let us live in peace?". This "judgement" pronounced by "the people" causes that Che deliberately stands up, passes the farmer and the officer to walk to his execution).

If your interested in the "anti Gue perspective", watch this movie. But even then you will get quickly bored by the badly made film.

subpar representation of the revolutionary..

[mtr0118 · 5/10 · 4 August 2006]

This picture about the life of the Argentinian rebel was really boring throughout the movie. Most of the traits Omar Shariff represented didn't match Guevara's personality. Though Shariff is better looking than the real Guevara, some of his outbursts made this movie look bad. Never did he steal or torture the Bolivian peasants when he roamed Bolivia. Al Pacino would have done a better job with this picture though Omar is a legend and needed a letback or break. The only cool choice on this picture is Jack Palance representation of the old Cuban jerk who messed up that island's history for five decades.Good thing his days are numbered and the old bum has quit.

I don't get it

[sobot · 8/10 · 13 November 2012]

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.

'Intentionally Noncommittal'

[CherCee · 1/10 · 15 December 2023]

When I saw the words 'intentionally noncommittal' linked with the name 'Che', it threw up a *lot* of red flags to me. How could anyone be 'intentionally noncommittal' about Ernesto 'Che' Guevara? He was a vile, violent, nasty homicidal maniac who had a God complex. He was responsible for a lot of death and destruction, and not just in Cuba. Also in Bolivia, where he met his deserved end. You can go and ask anyone who fled, or whose family fled, the Communist hellhole of Cuba created by Fidel and Raul Castro and 'Che' Guevara. They will give you an earful of the torture, death, and destruction perpetrated by that demonic trio. The idiot Michael Moore made a 'documentary' filled with lies about the healthcare system there. Search your web browser for pictures of the decrepit, rundown cars, houses, and streets where tourists aren't allowed (but some brave people have managed to smuggle some pictures out).

Trying to make a bad film sound good

[Pete-217 · 19 September 1999]

With more than it's fair share of wooden acting 'Che!' seems doomed from the word go.

Omar Shariff attempts to breathe life into his overtly asthmatic portrayal of the revolutionary icon, Ernesto Che Guevaro, but is held back by the sheer lack of factual references. Jack Palance portrays Fidel Castro, in a manner that could almost have been written by the US government, as a man not able to fully think things through for himself. The film portrays the July 26th movement as an inept band of unwashed desperados who want to take over Cuba, but with only sheer luck, & government ineptitude, helping them to ultimately win through.

Covering the period of time from Che's first arrival on Cuban soil in 1956 until his Bolivian death in 1967, 'Che!' struggles with both poor screenplay and locations, but still trys to maintain a sense of purpose throughout. It could have been so much better. The political oppression that led to the overthrow of the Batista regime is totally glossed over & the rebels life, in the Sierra Madre, is portrayed as almost luxurious with Batista's troops wandering around waiting to be shot. Constant monologues, as a means to link scenes, prove to be more irritating than useful, and you find yourself wishing for the what little action there is to resume.

The film truly dies when Guevara leaves Cuba for Bolivia, with Shariff becoming more asthmatic and psychotic by the minute, until his ultimate capture in the mountains and his eventual murder in the backroom of La Higuera's village schoolhouse.

Any half decent film director would probably relish the chance to make a bio-pic of the legend that is Che Guevara. Che is an icon who deserves to have a film biography worthy of his legend, in the same manner of the bio-pics of Chaplin, Gandhi, Biko, Morrison etc.

Wikipedia could provide more info than this movie.

[mark.waltz · 2/10 · 11 June 2023]

Blame the script for creating a very dull movie on the famous Argentine born rebel who became an important figure in Castro's Cuba and fictionalized as the narrator years after this for the musical "Evita". Omar Sharif looks the part onscreen, but sadly that's where similarities end. Add in further ridiculous casting with Jack Palance as Fidel Castro, another case of hysterically bad miscasting, increased by his melodramatic overacting.

I found this to be a lifeless account of Che's life, coming to life through some beautiful air shots of what is supposed to be the mountains of Cuba. It's told in flashback with rather weak narration, documentary style, and an insult to Cubans and other Hispanic cultures because nobody seems to even be remotely Hispanic. Melodramatic speeches and episodic situations are not helped by a confusing structure, episodic in nature and obviously incomplete. Glad I caught it, but for historical research purposes, a complete waste of time.