Che: Part Two (Guerrilla) (2008)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Anthony L

  
  It seems that the harshest critics of the two Che films by Steven Soderbergh are the same ones that claim the first film is better than the second due to there being more action, completely ignoring the fact that the films are biopics and therefore based on history - damn you Che for… More
  It seems that the harshest critics of the two Che films by Steven Soderbergh are the same ones that claim the first film is better than the second due to there being more action, completely ignoring the fact that the films are biopics and therefore based on history - damn you Che for not venturing into space to defeat an alien species intent on destroying every cigar factory in the Caribbean. The second instalment of the Che story is a continuation of the brilliant first film, I see them as one film to be honest and therefore, just as brilliant. Che's defeat in Bolivia is a very sad chapter in modern history, Soderbergh did pull on the heartstrings or milk it one bit, the message gets through load and clear on its own and it shows his maturity as a director. Added bonus was the appearance of Franka Potente who I've got a bit of a crush on.

• Graham J

  
  A sprawling, epic look at the life of Che Guevara through the lense of Steven Soderbergh. Del Toro is brilliant in the lead.

• Randy T

  
  Say what you want about the man's politics, you gotta admire his huevos.

• Jeff "

  
  As Che Guevara's life couldn't be told in one film, the filmmakers decided to cut his story into two parts. A necessity as theres a lot of ground to cover. In the Second part, The filmmakers focus on Che"s Bolivian campaign and his eventual demise. Ernesto… More
  As Che Guevara's life couldn't be told in one film, the filmmakers decided to cut his story into two parts. A necessity as theres a lot of ground to cover. In the Second part, The filmmakers focus on Che"s Bolivian campaign and his eventual demise. Ernesto "Che" Guevara continues his exploits as he seeks to free Latin America from American Democracy. The film shows Che as he launches a Guerilla war against the Bolivian Army. Through the campaign, Che experiences many difficulties including being poorly equipped, being cut off from Cuba and suffering Asthma attacks in the damp Bolivian jungles. Benecio Del Toro delivers yet another great performance as Che Guevara and he really makes the role of Che a part of himself. Del Toro is very well chosen for the part, and like in part one, he delivers a great performance on screen. The film does a good job at telling the story of Che Guevara's eventual demise by being assassinated by the Bolivian authorities. I read a lot about Che's life, and the film is very authentic to the mans story. Sure there are a few minor details that aren't accurate, but for the most both films tell this mans story in great detail. Part Two is maybe a less strong second half to an incredible first part, but it's still a well told film about a legendary Icon of the 20th Century. Once you know Che's entire life, and this film made me read more about him, you come to understand that he wanted to end Latin American poverty and corruption. Of course because he was a communist, people easily get an idea that he was an evil man, but this film along with part one may open up your eyes and make you ask your own questions about this man. A very interesting film, long, but this is a strong biopic on a symbol, of the Cuban Revolution.

• Michael S

  
  Doesn't really hold up to PART ONE, but still a very good piece of work and a mandatory companion to the first (greater) half of CHE.

• Chris W

  
  Despite both parts being the same length, Che: Part Two (Guerrilla) is slower, feels longer, and is quieter. It is also far bleaker and less hopeful. It's still just as arst, but in a totally different way. It is shot differently, the narrative structure (what is there anyways),… More
  Despite both parts being the same length, Che: Part Two (Guerrilla) is slower, feels longer, and is quieter. It is also far bleaker and less hopeful. It's still just as arst, but in a totally different way. It is shot differently, the narrative structure (what is there anyways), is different, and the cast is almost entirely different. The acting remains phenomenal, but it should if this is being watched as one long film and not two separate and distinct parts. I think I enjoyed part one better, but this one is still pretty good. I expected it to be harder to watch, but not for there to be a change in quality. I did not get to see this as one long unbroken film, but I think I'd give both parts a cvombined rating of 4.5/5, and keep both individual parts as 4/5 each. The extra star half star is a bonus just for the way the project was undertaken and comnmitted to film.

• Carlos M

  
  This nicely done second part of Soderberg's epic, finding Che in the Bolivian guerrilla, is more objective and portrays him as more a man than a hero, which contributes as a fortunate improvement to the first film.

• Gordon A

  
  Long, slow amble through Che's Bolivian campaign which felt like a drawn out rerun of the far superior Part 1.

• El Hombre I

  
  Second film begins with Argentine-born revolutionary Che Guevara having left Cuba on an ill-fated campaign in disguise, eventually smuggling himself over the Bolivian border, leaving behind a second wife and 5 children. Throughout, there is never any mention of what would happen to… More
  Second film begins with Argentine-born revolutionary Che Guevara having left Cuba on an ill-fated campaign in disguise, eventually smuggling himself over the Bolivian border, leaving behind a second wife and 5 children. Throughout, there is never any mention of what would happen to them, how they feel, or how he even feels about all this. Still, Steven Soderbergh seems a lot milder and more sentimental as a director with a slower pace. Although I knew the outcome, Soderbergh does his best in showing how frustrating the fight in Bolivia might have been with a fading echo of what was possible in Cuba. I would've like some of Che's failed campaign in the Congo to have been showcased, but I'll take what I can get. Regardless of how you feel about it politically, Soderbergh makes nice use of dilemmas that characters are confronted with. In real life, these were moments in the struggle where people made important decisions based on ideas of strength and weakness. <a href="http://s273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/goji9000/?action=view¤t=chepart2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/goji9000/chepart2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

• Daniel M

  
  If the first Che film was a laborious exercise in preaching to the converted, Che: Part Two is a laborious way of sending people to sleep. The second part of Steven Soderbergh?s dual biopic is dull beyond measure, either removing or fatally compromising the strengths of the first film… More
  If the first Che film was a laborious exercise in preaching to the converted, Che: Part Two is a laborious way of sending people to sleep. The second part of Steven Soderbergh?s dual biopic is dull beyond measure, either removing or fatally compromising the strengths of the first film whilst retaining said film?s formulaic dialogue and poor direction. Once again, Benicio Del Toro is brilliant in the title role, truly inhabiting his character and carrying off his scenes with a growing combination of pathos and denial. But one of the film?s first flaws is that Che is in it for much less than he should be, certainly considering the title. While the first film had as its backbone the encounters between Che and Fidel Castro, Castro is not in this segment at all, save for a brief speech at the beginning explaining why Che has left Cuba. While this is historically accurate, insofar as Castro had no direct involvement in Bolivia, this means that there is no-one for Che to bounce off on screen. To find chemistry, the film therefore has to turn to the struggles of the individual soldiers, but these are so devoid of personality or distinctive features that there is no chemistry to be found. One might almost think that the characters had wandered off the set of Schindler?s List, they are that dull. Soderbergh?s direction remains mediocre in this second part. In one scene in the Bolivian jungle, Che?s guerrillas are marching in single file from one training camp to another. But rather than attempt a close-up of their faces to show their personal hardship, Soderbergh?s camera is focussed on a branch with leaves on it, hanging inscrutably in front of the lens with no explanation offered. He also has a problem deciding upon whose perspective the film is from. For most of it, the film is shot in third-person, i.e. the camera is an observer to Che?s actions. But when Che is executed, the film suddenly becomes first-person, going to Che?s POV as he falls to the ground and slowly breathes his last. It makes no rational sense. On top of this, the script remains as dull as before, only now we have to put up with various lines which refer to Che?s lingering popularity and destroy the film?s internal credibility. In one scene in the second half, a soldier asks Che to pose for a photograph, saying to him ?I?m sure a lot of people would like a photograph of you?. That is a genuine face-palm moment, since it destroys both the audience?s patience and all of Soderbergh?s serious intentions. It?s almost as though he had struggled for three hours to make a taut, self-contained film without pandering to Che?s supporters, and then threw up his hands, gave up and went down the road to complete flippancy. Just like its predecessor, Che: Part Two can?t make up its mind as to what its perspective is or intentions are. It?s more boring than the first part, just as predictable, and would have been completely forgettable had it not been for the limited presence of Del Toro. Just like Kill Bill, Part 1 will never make sense until you have seen Part 2, but otherwise this film is little more than frustrating, un-compelling tosh.

• Mister C

  
  Calling this a sequel would be a tragedy. It is definitely not. The second half of Steven Soderbergh's four hour opus of a masterpiece picks up the story in the mid-1960's when Che(Benicio Del Toro) sneaks into Bolivia disguised,amusingly as a stiff,bald Uruguayan… More
  Calling this a sequel would be a tragedy. It is definitely not. The second half of Steven Soderbergh's four hour opus of a masterpiece picks up the story in the mid-1960's when Che(Benicio Del Toro) sneaks into Bolivia disguised,amusingly as a stiff,bald Uruguayan businessman. His mission is to establish a jungle outpost and train recruits for a guerilla campaign that was to begin in the mining regions of the country,which contained the most radicalized Bolivians. But the operation was a botch,virtually from the beginning and succeeded only the hastening the date of Guevara's martydom. There are many reasons to highly recommend the film in its entirely,including its first-rate depiction of guerilla warfare which Soderbergh no doubt appreciates as analogous to low-budget filmmaking(underfunded,overmatched groups of young people trying to achieve impossible dreams). What is especially striking about the massive project is that how the two halves mirror each other,and in the second half we see Che trying to make the magic of his youth happen one more time,as of replaying history,but its worth watching as one of the top ten films of 2008.

• Michael G

  
  The second part (or half) of Che is definitely the more gritty and less stylized part of Stephen Soderbergh's epic. If you're not familiar with the story you're basically going to watch a hopeful situation go from bad and see it get continually worse. Not to say I was… More
  The second part (or half) of Che is definitely the more gritty and less stylized part of Stephen Soderbergh's epic. If you're not familiar with the story you're basically going to watch a hopeful situation go from bad and see it get continually worse. Not to say I was looking for a happy ending but I'd rather not watch someone die of cancer either. Franke Potente is always a plus and the Matt Damon cameo helped wake me up. Basically the first 20 and the last 15 minutes were the most interesting to me. If I had to pick between the two parts (even though they're 1 movie) I'd say Part One is definitely the better. Move onto Part Two only if you love One so much that you want to read subtitles for another 2 hours.

• Walter M

  
  Part Two(Guerrilla) starts with a georgraphy lesson of Bolivia in relation to the rest of South America. Director Steven Soderbergh and his collaborators deserve credit for turning Che's(Benicio Del Toro) Bolivian diary into a compelling, often suspenseful narrative, since there… More
  Part Two(Guerrilla) starts with a georgraphy lesson of Bolivia in relation to the rest of South America. Director Steven Soderbergh and his collaborators deserve credit for turning Che's(Benicio Del Toro) Bolivian diary into a compelling, often suspenseful narrative, since there had already been a plodding documentary utilizing the same material. This part actually serves as a contrast to the first part, in trying to compare what went right in Cuba with what went horribly wrong in Bolivia a decade later.(When a comrade says you've been in worse spots, you know you are screwed.) Throughout the first film, it is often mentioned that Che is Argentinian but it is never that big of a deal since Fidel Castro(Demian Bichir) was leading things. In Bolivia, the insurgency was led by Che and some Cubans he brought along, as part of an international liberation movement.(From what I have read in a biography, Che got tired of meetings and taking his kids to school after the victory, so he went rogue in search of revolutions elsewhere. Contradicting this, the films indicate Castro supported him, as presumably part of the International Communist Conspiracy.) This only made it that much harder to get local support from the peasants, no matter how much some of them revered him. Neither part makes much of a case as to how corrupt Batista was while Bolivian President Barrientos(Joaquim de Almeida) just rules with an iron hand, saying he would have killed Castro when he had the chance. That's not to mention the American military, as part of the International Capitalist Conspiracy, supporting the Bolivian military.

• Byron B

  
  Part two is much more slower paced, quieter, and has less personal investment. A lot of bad press has built and become accepted about Fidel and Che's revolutionary movement in Cuba. Che must assume a new identity to enter Bolivia, in fact rebel fighters from all other countries… More
  Part two is much more slower paced, quieter, and has less personal investment. A lot of bad press has built and become accepted about Fidel and Che's revolutionary movement in Cuba. Che must assume a new identity to enter Bolivia, in fact rebel fighters from all other countries coming to help the movement in Bolivia must assume Bolivian nationality to even fight with the few rebel fighters there. The Bolivian culture from the peasants to the military commanders has a strong distrust of foreigners and anti-communist sentiments are stronger now. You don't get to know the band of revolutionary fighters that Che helps lead as individuals as much in this part of the story. The military with American assistance is becoming more technologically savvy, while the revolutionaries try to follow easily manipulated news reports on the radio. The revolutionaries cannot build their numbers since the peasants do not support them in the same way as Cuban peasants supported the movement. They have some communication breakdown, and despite what Che says during the first part, the size of the armies does matter. It is all very depressing to see the downhill fall of Che's efforts in this Bolivian conflict. Though he has such a love of humanity and struggles against oppressive governments, he is made out to be a monster by those in favor of keeping the poor poor and the educated men in power in power. I don't think you should see this part without also seeing the first part. If this second part was viewed alone, I think I would rate it a little lower, but it is boosted by being the antithesis failure to the first part's success.

• Fascade F

  
  In this second part of the ongoing and incredible documentary re-enacted to perfection by Benicio Del Toro as the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. This film shows the struggle and the accomplishments that the seasoned guerrillas went through under the heat… More
  In this second part of the ongoing and incredible documentary re-enacted to perfection by Benicio Del Toro as the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. This film shows the struggle and the accomplishments that the seasoned guerrillas went through under the heat given by Fulgencio Batista which His friend and confidant Fidel Castro made every attempt to over throw. Viewing the second part of this film you actuallu feel the pain that the guerrillas go through along with the pain and ultimate sacrifice of being the saviors for freedom from dictatorship. It is gripping as you watch how hard they worked to stay together despite the odds of the Cuban forces. Make every attempt that you can to see this...it is proof that freedom isn't ever free.

• Cameron J

  
  The film takes some heavy damage from lack of development, plodding, little engagement, confusions and repetition from not only earlier events in the film, but even events in the previous film. However, the film does benefit from the solid performances, good production value,… More
  The film takes some heavy damage from lack of development, plodding, little engagement, confusions and repetition from not only earlier events in the film, but even events in the previous film. However, the film does benefit from the solid performances, good production value, sophistication and a rock-solid ending. Ultimately, "Guerrilla" is a rather underwhelming closer for the "Che" story, but still interesting enough to be a fair watch.

• Chris B

  
  Let me start off this review by saying that although Che is smartly divided into two separate feature length films, both run at roughly 135 minutes, it should be watched as a whole in order to garner the entire experience. The second part of Che is a much more bleak film and shows… More
  Let me start off this review by saying that although Che is smartly divided into two separate feature length films, both run at roughly 135 minutes, it should be watched as a whole in order to garner the entire experience. The second part of Che is a much more bleak film and shows Che and his movement in full decline for many reasons but mainly because the people of Bolivia don't emphasize with Che and what his armed struggle can do for their people. Without the support of the people and a persistent struggle to survive, the film ultimately ends with Che being executed in Bolivia. This powerful scene is the only POV shot in the entire film and we get to see what Che sees as he falls to the ground and breathes his last breaths. Benicio Del Toro gives another solid and understated performance as Che and is the heart of the film. While the film may be one-sided, only showing the good and honorable things Che stood for and acted upon and none of the bad, it is a powerful work and praise goes out to the crew and actors involved. This is a much more slow and darker film then it's first part but is essential in order to show what Che's ultimate fate would become. The colors in the film are muted and seem much more bland then the first showing the downright ugly struggle for freedom. While this is not as entertaining as the first part of Che, it's also essential and a more thoughtfully created piece of film making. Both parts needs to be seen consecutively in order to fully comprehend the entire film and story of it's characters, mainly Che Guevara, and should be viewed as soon as possible in order to put them together.

• Mike T

  
  Soderbergh's epic, totally unorthodox biopic deserves recognition for its achievements. It didn't deserve to be one of the biggest box office flops of the decade, by any means. The screenplay is definitely its most flawed component... any audience member going into Che… More
  Soderbergh's epic, totally unorthodox biopic deserves recognition for its achievements. It didn't deserve to be one of the biggest box office flops of the decade, by any means. The screenplay is definitely its most flawed component... any audience member going into Che without prior knowledge is going to be confused throughout most of the film. It is also peppered with occasional expository scenes that are aggravating to sit through. Having said that, what Soderbergh does with the project as a director is outstanding. This is one of the most well-shot films of 2008, filled with stunning imagery and evocative use of locations. Benicio Del Toro is subdued and constantly interesting to watch, and he does his role justice. It is a distantly hypnotic work, that feels as if it can only be admired from afar.

• William G

  
  A technically admirable you-are-there experience that fails to let us really know the man behind the revolution.

• Eduardo C

  
  <i>cantarán su luto de hombre y de animal/y en vez de lágrimas echar con plomo llorarán</i> As a direct counterpart to its predecessor, "Guerrilla" works brilliantly. Eschewing a narrative framing device it chooses to focus even more on the procedural aspects of… More
  <i>cantarán su luto de hombre y de animal/y en vez de lágrimas echar con plomo llorarán</i> As a direct counterpart to its predecessor, "Guerrilla" works brilliantly. Eschewing a narrative framing device it chooses to focus even more on the procedural aspects of staging a revolution through guerrilla warfare. As in "The Argentine" we see the creation of a base camp, meetings between clandestine groups, interactions with the local peasants and the film even culminates with a battle in a city. What worked so well in Cuba, however, goes terribly wrong in Bolivia for reasons the film mentions (cultural differences, Bolivian anti-guerrilla squads trained and financed by the CIA, local organizations reneging promised aid, communication between outfits quickly broke down) and reasons it doesn't (Renee Barrientos was a master orator who spoke the local indian dialect, Cuba opted to distance itself from Guevara's campaign). As the failures mount, locals betray them and the army closes in the film's focus is almost entirely on Che. While in the previous film he was never photographed individually. He was always surrounded by trees, by soldiers, by people, part of a collective whole. In this one the camera is closer far closer to him. As mistakes turn into tragedies and Ernesto comes ever nearer to his ultimate fate, the camera tightens on his face. In "The Argentine" we saw nothing in it but the ferocity of his beliefs and the lengths he was willing to go through to carry them out. Now, for the first time, we see the faintest outlines of doubt. And yet starving, ravaged by disease, betrayed and facing death at every turn he marches on, his resolve never wavering, the perfect embodiment of the revolution's motto: "Patria o muerte!". The outcome is not structured to be a surprise but presented as an inevitability. Everyone with half a brain already knows the story and the film uses that preexisting knowledge to cast a funereal tone over the ill fated expedition. This makes the film's final sequences, the first time Soderbergh chooses to forego "realism" for a more poetic aesthetic, particularly poignant. The best shot in both films involves Guevara cornered, hiding behind a rock, fumbling for his rifle while we see army forces descending all around him for the kill. The most affecting is his eventual execution, photographed entirely in first person up until the moment he closes his eyes. As before, the performances from the non professionals tend to be poor. As before, it does not break the film's hypnotic spell. The same cannot be said, however, of the needless celebrity cameos that do nothing but distract. Matt Damon, Joaquim de Almeida and Lou Diamond Phillips make appearances that bring the film to a screeching halt. Franka Potente's role is far more prominent, but her spanish is perfect and she manages to blend in so well so as to be almost unrecognizable, enhancing the film rather than detracting from it. Because the film is focused almost exclusively on the day to day life of Guevara's outfit in Bolivia, it is more effective than "The Argentine" despite being so similar. For all its strenghts though, it has one large flaw: using a single peasant family to represent Bolivian peseantry not only reduces the scope of the film drastically but pointlessly breaks its aesthetic. We become more familiar with the family than with anyone else in the film not named Guevara which gives them an importance that they do not deserve nor does the film warrant. It is also, as its predecessor, too short to be entirely effective and an extra hour could have turned it into an undeniable masterpiece. While both films work very well individually, I have a feeling they would work even better as one. If edited together, especially if both revolutions were intercut non chronologically (as opposed to tagging one film at the end of the other) it could serve to both enchance the experience and highlight the themes. I imagine we will never know.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings