I was really disappointed with the way it turned out, a pair of films I admired but didn’t enjoy.
There are many issues for this, mostly are a matter of taste. While I admire Steven Soderbergh’s willingness to play by anything but his own rules, he does his subject a disservice by delivering a narrative so disconnected from it’s central device.
Biopics run into problems when they compress events of a subject’s life into the running time, such is not the case with Che. You’ve got 4 1/2 hours to immerse yourself into that world, my question is why wasn’t the film so disengaged? if part one was about the trials of combat, part two is about the toppling of ideals. Both parallel each other, but there is neary a moment when that engaging power comes through. It’s that detached.
The film fails to provide a compelling portrait of it’s main device, given the man behind the T shirt is a juicy character with an interesting life. Benicio Del Toro should not be faulted for this, for his portrayal makes you feel what its like being this man. The choice in question is the lack of momentum to drive the events, Che doesn’t envelop the viewer connectively (at least to me) till the final 40 minutes of part 2, when all hell breaks loose. That’s a long time waiting for something to happen, something I cannot forgive a movie for doing.
To be true to the character, the film must be true to itself. For those reasons, Che succeeds. But for satisfying demands of it’s audience, the film is a complete failure in many sorts. Lucky you if you can connect the maps at the beginning to narrative sense.
The films were shot on the Red, and look like shit. I’m not a fan of the format, it renders the otherwise fine cinematography bland. There is no color density to the images, flatness abounds. Had Soderberg gone super 16 like he originally intended, there would be a more engaging entry to the world as presented.
Che should be praised for being uncompromising, but sometimes uncompromising does not lend itself to being satisfying. I spent 4 1/2 hours in this world, and walked away knowing shit about it’s subject other than his commitment to his methodology. For a film this long, it should have had more to it than lingers on what it does not achieve. It’s a matter of approach and focus, for Che spends way to much time distancing itself from it’s subject and not enough exploring it. That is both the source of anguish, and the film’s greatest objective.
Che is not a bad movie, just a poorly focused one. That’s a matter of distance, but I wanted to know more.
See it at the IFC if you can, it’s guaranteed to be nothing but interesting.
Alanedit
I was really disappointed with the way it turned out, a pair of films I admired but didn’t enjoy.
There are many issues for this, mostly are a matter of taste. While I admire Steven Soderbergh’s willingness to play by anything but his own rules, he does his subject a disservice by delivering a narrative so disconnected from it’s central device.
Biopics run into problems when they compress events of a subject’s life into the running time, such is not the case with Che. You’ve got 4 1/2 hours to immerse yourself into that world, my question is why wasn’t the film so disengaged? if part one was about the trials of combat, part two is about the toppling of ideals. Both parallel each other, but there is neary a moment when that engaging power comes through. It’s that detached.
The film fails to provide a compelling portrait of it’s main device, given the man behind the T shirt is a juicy character with an interesting life. Benicio Del Toro should not be faulted for this, for his portrayal makes you feel what its like being this man. The choice in question is the lack of momentum to drive the events, Che doesn’t envelop the viewer connectively (at least to me) till the final 40 minutes of part 2, when all hell breaks loose. That’s a long time waiting for something to happen, something I cannot forgive a movie for doing.
To be true to the character, the film must be true to itself. For those reasons, Che succeeds. But for satisfying demands of it’s audience, the film is a complete failure in many sorts. Lucky you if you can connect the maps at the beginning to narrative sense.
The films were shot on the Red, and look like shit. I’m not a fan of the format, it renders the otherwise fine cinematography bland. There is no color density to the images, flatness abounds. Had Soderberg gone super 16 like he originally intended, there would be a more engaging entry to the world as presented.
Che should be praised for being uncompromising, but sometimes uncompromising does not lend itself to being satisfying. I spent 4 1/2 hours in this world, and walked away knowing shit about it’s subject other than his commitment to his methodology. For a film this long, it should have had more to it than lingers on what it does not achieve. It’s a matter of approach and focus, for Che spends way to much time distancing itself from it’s subject and not enough exploring it. That is both the source of anguish, and the film’s greatest objective.
Che is not a bad movie, just a poorly focused one. That’s a matter of distance, but I wanted to know more.
See it at the IFC if you can, it’s guaranteed to be nothing but interesting.