Year: 2009
Country: France, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Spain, USA
Genre: Biography , Historical
Length: 135 minutes + 134
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay: Peter Buchman and Benjamin A. van der Veen
Cast: Benicio Del Toro (Ernesto "Che" Guevara), Demian Bichir (Fidel Castro)
Production: Laura Bickford Productions
Distribution: IFC Films, Optimum Releasing
Since I have a new computer, I'm always looking for new Blu-Ray to enrich my collection of original discs. Today, spend even a penny for a movie or a video game has become practically useless if not "stupid", but downloading a movie in high definition is still a torture, and sometimes I like to reward you with a nice movie HD also promises to be more of yet another stupid Hollywood. So I chose to buy What Part One and Part Two What by Steven Soderbergh. The figure of Ernesto Guevara in fact has always fascinated me, but I have never heard enough about him documented, and since I know that Benicio Del Toro is a good actor and that the film had also been well received at Cannes, I decided to throw up this long biopic divided into two parts.
The first film tells the events surrounding the Cuban Revolution of '56-'58, and is interrupted by the flash-forward black and white on the visit to the headquarters of Che Guevara United Nations in New York in '64. Soderbergh does not care any way to introduce the character, but immediately starts in the middle of the action: on the one hand being interviewed by an American journalist, the other meets Fidel Castro at a dinner with some friends to discuss the Revolution. The film continues with a documentary style that shows the lives of revolutionaries who devote themselves to the spot, they train, they get sick, desert, ambushing troops finally liberate Cuba from Batista and Del
What is actually said very little. Although it is indisputably the star of this story, the director is expected that those who watch this film is already documented on his character and history of the main building we have seen events that involved. His motivations are not explained, his relationship with Fidel and other revolutionaries is barely investigated, but instead is placed in a care praticolarissima reconstruct the battles and life in the forest in Cuba, with such detail and attention that seems to be looking at the original material.
The film ends after the capture of the city of Santa Clara with Che Guevara who travels by car with a column of revolutionaries into Havana.
What is actually said very little. Although it is indisputably the star of this story, the director is expected that those who watch this film is already documented on his character and history of the main building we have seen events that involved. His motivations are not explained, his relationship with Fidel and other revolutionaries is barely investigated, but instead is placed in a care praticolarissima reconstruct the battles and life in the forest in Cuba, with such detail and attention that seems to be looking at the original material.
The film ends after the capture of the city of Santa Clara with Che Guevara who travels by car with a column of revolutionaries into Havana.
The second film begins in '66, when Che Guevara's attempt to foment a revolution Boliviana, a company which turns out to be a failure. The film is shot with a rhythm much slower than the first, and even the colors of the Andes are much darker and more greyish than the Caribbean - all help to emphasize the difference with the passion and the success of the Cuban. What the years that passed between the taking of Santa Clara and the beginning of this adventure is not suicidal told absolutely nothing - nothing of his years as minister, nothing of his time as an ambassador around the world, and none of its revolutionary period in the Congo.
Both films will last just over two hours, but the first as he weighs the second lasted four and six. In his review, James Rocchi writes:
' Che does not show the man behind the t-shirt, but in a much more interesting choosing to show us how the man ended up on the t-shirt. Che makes little of Guevara's personal life (that's what I felt, this is what he loved, this is what he believes and that is what made him what it was) but simply shows us some ( not all) of the events of his life that changed him and the story. '
Yes and no. The fact that the film does not speak of the life of Che Guevara, although it should be a biopic, we agree. The fact that shows "how it got on t-shirt "is rather questionable. The film in fact shows Che Guevara do this and that but never did see anyone worship him as an icon. This upstream knows the viewer.
'Ugly biographical films try to tell you everything about a person's life and a good biographical films invite you to discover things that are not shown on the screen. That is, without doubt, a good biographical drama '.
Why? If a film is biographical, should not be talking, say, of his life, for example? I mean, if I should take a book on the life of Martin Luther King and I tell the minute his speech "I Have a Dream" but not tell me how he came to be the person I would find that it was incomplete. And if a reviewer told me about it well, saying "it makes me want to watch a documentary," I get angry. Why does a film have to be less than a book and entice them to read? If I chose the film I wanted the movie, dammit!
'There is no narration, only a few titles to establish time and place, it is assumed that the public is an adult and able to follow the film, and as a few films do this courtesy is a nice choice and welcome. '
axes? But I have found it disgusting and incomprehensible.
The second film, "Guerrilla" , has a few words that speak of the six years of interventionist Guevara (who, it must be said, they saw him make some of the most extreme and violent acts in the name of the construction of a new Cuba). '
If the figure of Che Guevara is much praised and despised on the left to right, would not be interesting - and a little neutral - also show this time, and have a more three-dimensional portrait of the character? When I wrote on Facebook that I wanted a good movie about Che Guevara, "my friend Teresa said that" it would be like having a good movie about Hitler. " Embhé? Even a movie about a mass murderer of Jews can be "good" that is well done, if we look at the character in the most complete, accurate, documented, and honest as possible. But What this does not happen, because the character is not taken into consideration at all. Yeah that Soderbergh and Del Toro have spent years to gather information about Che Guevara, also going to meet those people still alive who knew him personally. What do you do with a lot of research if we always show it in the middle of the jungle, scratching his beard? Why this choice should be made directing the film "artistic" and "original", while a traditional approach would be despicable?
'I can only shudder to meet the requirement more enlightening monologues by the actors, or more time devoted to the loves of the rebel leader, or any dilution or alteration made to reach a wider audience and profitable. 'But I
I would feel comfortable and warm. Because the cinema is necessarily staid serious? Che Guevara I do not ask us to sing it, firing volleys of gunfire, or worse than Tony Montana rattles off one-liners tough as Schwarzenegger, but what is shown his character! Through dialogue! What's wrong? And because a dialogue has to be a dilution or alteration? There are bundles and bundles of documents about Che Guevara, many written by himself. It would be so difficult to rebuild the box that shows in more detail what kind of person was he?
' Che does not tell us everything about Guevara, does not feel the need to conform to the vision of him as a martyr of the left or the right of him as a murderess. It 's simple, direct and wants the audience to face its own idea: "Here is a man, this is what he did, so he lived, that is how he died." Che is a film that communicates excitement, pathos and sheer passion for cinema is a piece of art worthy of being examined and discussed, that opens opportunities and encourages them to think and feel emotions without telling you what you should think and feel. '
Here Rocchi right: That does not tell us anything. Too bad that, for some strange perverse reason, he sees it as an honor. Maybe it makes him a snob. Probably he is a professor of Cuban history that has been excited to see rebuilt some guerrilla actions of his favorite hero, but for an outsider the movie is incomprehensible. And that means not "treat the public as intelligent people," but "talk and badly" and that's it.
'Intelligent, beautiful, raw and brilliant, Che is not only the story of a revolutionary is a revolution in itself.
I HOPE NOT !!!!!
----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Pro
+ Benicio Del Toro And 'Che Guevara
+ Very well reconstructed the various guerrilla
+ Appearance interesting documentary
Against
- Benicio Del Toro's skill is wasted here
- incomprehensible to those who do not already know all the facts upstream
- Incomplete: not really a biopic, but only one (long) re-interpretation of some events
- The first film is boring
- The second film is a torture
Judgement
-2
But it is so staid that would give even less than ten thousand. Too bad, missed opportunity. Soderbergh is a good director for the shots, but despite its narrative choices are certainly original, however, remain questionable. To make matters worse the movie, then, is the fact that Blu-Ray of Optimum Releasing force to look good half-hour of advertising the one before watching the movie itself. A great insult to the paying customer that makes you want to download movies from the Internet, burn it and distribute it in free ride for revenge.
Both films will last just over two hours, but the first as he weighs the second lasted four and six. In his review, James Rocchi writes:
' Che does not show the man behind the t-shirt, but in a much more interesting choosing to show us how the man ended up on the t-shirt. Che makes little of Guevara's personal life (that's what I felt, this is what he loved, this is what he believes and that is what made him what it was) but simply shows us some ( not all) of the events of his life that changed him and the story. '
Yes and no. The fact that the film does not speak of the life of Che Guevara, although it should be a biopic, we agree. The fact that shows "how it got on t-shirt "is rather questionable. The film in fact shows Che Guevara do this and that but never did see anyone worship him as an icon. This upstream knows the viewer.
'Ugly biographical films try to tell you everything about a person's life and a good biographical films invite you to discover things that are not shown on the screen. That is, without doubt, a good biographical drama '.
Why? If a film is biographical, should not be talking, say, of his life, for example? I mean, if I should take a book on the life of Martin Luther King and I tell the minute his speech "I Have a Dream" but not tell me how he came to be the person I would find that it was incomplete. And if a reviewer told me about it well, saying "it makes me want to watch a documentary," I get angry. Why does a film have to be less than a book and entice them to read? If I chose the film I wanted the movie, dammit!
'There is no narration, only a few titles to establish time and place, it is assumed that the public is an adult and able to follow the film, and as a few films do this courtesy is a nice choice and welcome. '
axes? But I have found it disgusting and incomprehensible.
The second film, "Guerrilla" , has a few words that speak of the six years of interventionist Guevara (who, it must be said, they saw him make some of the most extreme and violent acts in the name of the construction of a new Cuba). '
If the figure of Che Guevara is much praised and despised on the left to right, would not be interesting - and a little neutral - also show this time, and have a more three-dimensional portrait of the character? When I wrote on Facebook that I wanted a good movie about Che Guevara, "my friend Teresa said that" it would be like having a good movie about Hitler. " Embhé? Even a movie about a mass murderer of Jews can be "good" that is well done, if we look at the character in the most complete, accurate, documented, and honest as possible. But What this does not happen, because the character is not taken into consideration at all. Yeah that Soderbergh and Del Toro have spent years to gather information about Che Guevara, also going to meet those people still alive who knew him personally. What do you do with a lot of research if we always show it in the middle of the jungle, scratching his beard? Why this choice should be made directing the film "artistic" and "original", while a traditional approach would be despicable?
'I can only shudder to meet the requirement more enlightening monologues by the actors, or more time devoted to the loves of the rebel leader, or any dilution or alteration made to reach a wider audience and profitable. 'But I
I would feel comfortable and warm. Because the cinema is necessarily staid serious? Che Guevara I do not ask us to sing it, firing volleys of gunfire, or worse than Tony Montana rattles off one-liners tough as Schwarzenegger, but what is shown his character! Through dialogue! What's wrong? And because a dialogue has to be a dilution or alteration? There are bundles and bundles of documents about Che Guevara, many written by himself. It would be so difficult to rebuild the box that shows in more detail what kind of person was he?
' Che does not tell us everything about Guevara, does not feel the need to conform to the vision of him as a martyr of the left or the right of him as a murderess. It 's simple, direct and wants the audience to face its own idea: "Here is a man, this is what he did, so he lived, that is how he died." Che is a film that communicates excitement, pathos and sheer passion for cinema is a piece of art worthy of being examined and discussed, that opens opportunities and encourages them to think and feel emotions without telling you what you should think and feel. '
Here Rocchi right: That does not tell us anything. Too bad that, for some strange perverse reason, he sees it as an honor. Maybe it makes him a snob. Probably he is a professor of Cuban history that has been excited to see rebuilt some guerrilla actions of his favorite hero, but for an outsider the movie is incomprehensible. And that means not "treat the public as intelligent people," but "talk and badly" and that's it.
'Intelligent, beautiful, raw and brilliant, Che is not only the story of a revolutionary is a revolution in itself.
I HOPE NOT !!!!!
Pro
+ Benicio Del Toro And 'Che Guevara
+ Very well reconstructed the various guerrilla
+ Appearance interesting documentary
Against
- Benicio Del Toro's skill is wasted here
- incomprehensible to those who do not already know all the facts upstream
- Incomplete: not really a biopic, but only one (long) re-interpretation of some events
- The first film is boring
- The second film is a torture
Judgement
-2
But it is so staid that would give even less than ten thousand. Too bad, missed opportunity. Soderbergh is a good director for the shots, but despite its narrative choices are certainly original, however, remain questionable. To make matters worse the movie, then, is the fact that Blu-Ray of Optimum Releasing force to look good half-hour of advertising the one before watching the movie itself. A great insult to the paying customer that makes you want to download movies from the Internet, burn it and distribute it in free ride for revenge.
0 comments:
Post a Comment