Charming and brutal

Better Late Then Never

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

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.

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.

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.