It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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

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.

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.

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?