Just finished watching it.

It is a very good film, with acting, etc. all top notch.

Is it a little too sympathetic to Che as a human being? Is the film guilty of being an over-simplification?

Regardless of the political ramifications of the film, this man has been accused of taking a personal hand in the death and execution of many people. Should the film be aware of the more complicated aspects of his life to follow? Perhaps the film is a little too "care bear" in that aspect? Is there no way to separate a simple road journey from what comes after? Am I being a little too tough on it?

I guess... what I'm saying is, that violence played a GIGANTIC role in Che's later life, and it explored briefly at Machu Picchu. The knowledge of what he became kept me at arms length from the film at almost all times. It's like getting warm and cozy with a film about Bush or Tony Blair or any minor tyrant. :wink:

For every The Motorcycle Diaries there is a Before Night Falls.

Rodrigo de la Serna was really good in this I thought. Better than Gael.

My favorite cut however, was the cut from Machu Picchu to "this"... Lima.

De la Serna was excellent. I put him as an official Oscar snub this year.

As to the contents, I agree, but realize this movie is meant to be a bit less rooted in history and more so in philosophy. I noticed this with recent films out of South America actually. Had the names been changed, and the figures just identified as future revolutionaries, then would the same questions hold? I think that ultimately why the choice of informative years rather than a striaght out docu-drama about his later recognized persona. Me does mention that revolution is impossible without guns when Granado cracks jokes about revolution through procreation. Both of which are problematic, but then again, are their any dramatic changes in power structures that aren't? I found his broodiness and confusion near the end to be the directors hesitation to directly bridge his "coming-of-age" with his later actions, and that was intentional. Its a way of professing an interest in the potential of the ideology rather than the kinetic manifestation of it. I do see your point, and it was interesting to see how the movie managed to tip-toe around it. It outright professed it in the narration in the beginning. This is not a movie about their politics, but rather a movie about a period in their lives were both were travelling down the same path (literally and ideologically). I think it worked quite well, but did avoid Che's darker aspects.