Fidel
Fidel
PG-13 | 27 January 2002 (USA)
Fidel Trailers

Fidel Castro rises to power in Cuba.

Reviews
XoWizIama

Excellent adaptation.

... View More
Konterr

Brilliant and touching

... View More
Voxitype

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

... View More
Zlatica

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

... View More
esteban1747

It is certainly very difficult for someone to prepare well a film about Fidel Castro and Cuban Revolution. One lengthy film is not enough, may be some sequels are the best way to show something consistent. The director and producers should be obviously people neutral trying to show good and bad of this process. The film from historical point of view has a lot of incoherences, persons like Fidel and Raúl Castro as well as Che Guevara are badly played. Fidel Castro is not so sweet talking as you can see him in this film, while Guevara was a man with culture and deep in his arguments, Gael García Bernal played a role far to be Che Guevara. There are also some doubtful scenes and assertions, e.g. young Fidel Castro arguing with the American Ambassador after the American marines raped the monument of José Martí. Historically there is no evidence that Castro had such a discussion with the ambassador. Raúl Castro was never sympathetic to the leader of Orthodox party, Eduardo Chivas. Raúl was a member of the youth of the so-called Partido Socialista Popular (Communist), and this party had no good relationship with Orthodox party, so the scene of Raúl running together with Fidel at the time Chivas shot himself is not real. Celia Sánchez died several years after the revolutionary offensive, which happened in 1967. Che Guevara resigned as Minister and went first to Congo, then came back to Cuba in order to prepare the guerrilla for Bolivia. Thus the film was wrong showing that Guevara resigned and went directly to Bolivia. Any film about Cuban Revolution should give some space to Camilo Cienfuegos' life, a real hero of the Cuban Revolution, who was badly shown in the film. The figure of Dr. Osvaldo Dorticos, the second president during the Revolution, who killed himself, is absent in the film. Hubert Matos' problem was touched superficially, the same is applicable to the case of General Ochoa, just mentioned slightly at the end of the film and mixed with Mariel exodus, the latter happened in 1980 while Ochoa was arrested and processed in 1989. The relationship between Cuba and USSR was historically very complicated, and shifting from time to time. I can make a longer list of historical shortcomings of this film, but it also has the Mexican accent of the actors talking in Spanish plus some extras that do not look at all as Cubans. To prepare a good material about Cuba you must have more mulatos and black people (no less than 40% of Cuban population) participating in the film.

... View More
Mr-Ark

The first two hours of this movie are superb. There are some very strong performances all round, and the activities are well researched and offer a fairly objective view of events. Obviously, many events are skirted over in order to fit the running time, but what is shown is a fairly accurate portrayal of history. The violence in particular is extremely well done, offering a very realistic portrayal of gunfire and its consequences, instead of some needlessly flashy OTT action.The problem comes around the 2 hour mark as Castro takes power of Cuba. Suddenly, the timeline lurches drastically to try and mention important events. The films low budget shows itself up as the film spans years and events with little or no regard to objective film making. The movie is about Fidel, however, over two hours in and we suddenly cut to a very badly filmed sequence showing the death of Che Guevara. Whilst certainly an important part of Fidel's life, the narrative shift from Fidel to Che seems clunky and out of place with the rest of the film. The desire to portray Fidel in a bad light, sacrifices the characterisation of the first half of the movie, and instead offers a clumsily scripted/filmed series of events designed to show Fidel in a bad light. The film should've ended when he took power. As it is, the final hour and a half ruin an otherwise great movie.

... View More
clarkca

This was as good as some of the more minor Cuban movies that are based in historical fact. However, the best movie is 'Before Night Falls' which is more professionally done, very compelling, and completely unvarnished on how brutal the dictatorship is. 'Fidel' did show the emptiness and lies of communism/socialism or as they call it, 'the revolution'. Soon there were shortages, rationing, a deteriorating standard of living, and of course, no freedom or rights for anyone except the ruling class; Fidel and his henchmen. Oh, it also demonstrates how utterly ignorant of basic economics Fidel is and how irrational and erratic he is.

... View More
romarub

I was very surprised, and disappointed, at what I thought was a very amateurishly acted movie. I expected something dynamic, controversial, and last but not least, interesting. Instead the acting seemed wooden (I can't think of a better way to describe it), the characters, unlike their real-life counterparts, devoid of life. The word "amateurish" kept popping into my head as I watched what I could of it - then I just gave up. I'm assuming the actors and creative staff must know what they're doing, but it just didn't come together in this "production". I was almost embarrassed for all the people involved in the making of this film.

... View More