Still need to let this one sink in for the night, but right now I feel very good about this film. Just saw it at a late showing today, and it was excellent. Will write up full review when *official* review burn-out wears off.

So what did you guys think? I thought it was well done, but am a teenie bit undecided about how corny the second half of the leprosy clinic part was. I have to think about it, since unless in my mind I can come up with a better alternative (sometimes I can) than I give the director the benefit of the doubt.

Gael is going to be right up there with Zhang Ziyi for *Big Forign Import (tm)* And was very good, as was everyone else in the cast. Really the only two regions with a U.S. market right now are China and South America, and since China has been confined to Martial Arts flicks (haven't seen drama or comedy out of there in a little while) then South America (mostly Mexico) is really filling in the gap and gaining in prominence right now. I like what I am seeing thus far as well, as a body of work mind you, not necessarily every individual film.

What did y''all think of the Motorcycle Diaries?

Dammit...where's Torri? :x

I'd say check out Infernal Affairs. Or 2046.

'Twas in Mexico experiencing a lil' bit of the Latin American countries myself...

It's in a virtual tie with Eternal Sunshine for top spot, I'm just giving it to the former because everyone has Eternal Sunshine as their #1 flick.

You do know that it's an adaptation, right? And, a pretty faithful one too (well...I'm reading it right now, actually. So far there haven't been big differences)...

The second half of the leprosy clinic was corny (the swimming across the water scene, especially) but it isn't laughable. Other than that and a slow middle section (some parts feel like the ROTK ending), it's veeeery solid as a film.

And, yesh. I fully agree on the Gael part. I can't see someone else playing Che or Julio. If only he knew English, so we could get the flicks faster!...BTW, while we're discussing Gael, how was Bad Education?

In a nutshell, the cinematography is as stunning as Hero's, but it doesn't overtake the substance of the story...

Bad Education is getting a view at KKendall Ciname tonight or tomorrow night from me. I don't know how I haven't seen it yet. I'm playing a bit of catch-up over vacation.

I knew it was adapted from both their books, it mentioned at the end of the film which two. Was the last image actually of Granado? I think it was, he's still alive.

I think the Road Trip is going to be the genre that defines Latin america between this and Y tu Mama Tambien. There is something about producing an identity through space that is different over there since so much of it hasn't been glamorized in the same way the U.S. or other parts of the world have been. It is now only a little less refined, but the directors and cinematographers emphasize the rawness of the experience. Makes me want to go to Machu Picchu even more than I always have.

Only part I thought bordered on Hollywood sentimentalism was the part were the Lepers are all waving at the end, etc. That scene got a bit corny for me. But overall still an excellent excellent film. A- and full review will be up in soon.

Grrrr I think Gael knows a little english, what about that Speech at the Oscars? I totally want more films from him, but not Padre Amaro type films.

Due to my State Exams, I haven't seen a single movie in theatres for five weeks. This is the longest period in which I haven't been to movies since 1999 (the year I really got into moviegoing). The first film I saw when it all was over, was The Motorcycle Diaries which I saw at my second-run theatre on Monday. I had my expectations up quite high after all the praises I read here on the boards as well as the promising storyline and the trailer. So here are my summed-up thoughts on the flick:

I must say that overall it was a decent movie, but not a masterpiece some make it out to be. The chemistry between Rodrigo de la Serna and Gael García Bernal was great, so at least there, the movie certainly hit gold. If you make a road movie about two close friends on the journey of their life and you have dozens of moments in which only these two friends appear together, good chemistry between the actors is more than necessary. Without it, you can't get the movie going at all. Thankfully, Bernal and de la Serna, as Guevara and Granada respectively are great together, as two characters, two friends, that complete each other. I can't say that the performance of either of them was better than the other one's performance. Both very good, really good and both had their great moments, moreso Bernal of course. The scenes that really stuck in my head were when Guevara tells that professor about how bad his book was, when Guevara holds his goobye speech in the end of the movie (even though it seemed a bit forced in order to explain Guevara's revolutionary future) and when he was having an asthmatic attack on the ship. Especially the latter was very well-acted and made even me grasp for air when I watched it.

The overall best scene of the entire movie, however, was probably when Guevara and Granada meet the homeless couple in the desert and sit with them by the fire. Very well-written and filmed. Speaking of filming, the movie has good cinematography. Not as excellent as some make it out to be (*cough* torrino *cough cough*), but still above average. Further technical aspects were decent too.

Now while the cinematography was great and all, I had a problem with the movie there. At times, it often seemed as if the movie was an advertisement for tourists to come and see South America, it was like a traveller's video guide. Unfortunately, these moments came up a bit too often for my taste.

As mentioned earlier, the acting was good. Bernal certainly holds a great deal of acting potential and I am looking forward to seeing him in more movies. In this film, he delivers his best acting performance up-to-date.

Another problem, I had with this movie was the fact, that especially towards the end, the movie was a bit too full of clichées. Dolce has already mentioned the hand-waving Lepers, but there were even more (like Guevara and Granada not putting the gloves on and by that going against the rules and the Lepers bringing both food etc.). These clicheés were unfortunately quite often in the last half of the movie and predictable.

Moreover, I think that the movie was oversimplifying. In my opinion, it portrays Che Guevara as a Mother Theresa-like person which he obviously wasn't. One can say that it is all authentic and based on Guevara's diaries and Granada's book, but then again, it doesn't take a genious to realize that this point of view was obviously biased. I hoped that the movie would take a more objective angle to the whole story, but unfortunately, it didn't.

While these aspects undeniable go against the movie, it is still a pretty good one. Bernal and de la Serna do a good job and as I said the movie has some really powerful and well-made moments, especially in the middle of the flick. I'd rate the movie a strong B.

I never had a problem with the lepers or the gloves.

That said I knew nothing of the real story, and just watched the movie for what it was. I felt the scenes fit well into their character, it never felt out of place to me. I thought the movie was good, but not great. Subtitles have never bothered me, but in this movie they really prevent you from getting the full ... effect? ... of the movie. Your eyes are forced to be to focused, dialouge to important, and you can't allow your eyes to wander through some of the amazing scenes. That really detracted from the movie for me personaly.

1. Um. The cinematography might be the best thing about the movie. I mean, what were you expecting? The flow of grass like the flow of leaves in Hero? This isn't supposed to be stylized. For what it is, the cinematography does its job effectively. Anything like what you find in a Rodriguez film or a Yimou film would, quite simply, be ridiculous in a film like The Motorcycle Diaries. Don't be stupid.

If you didn't see the beauty of some of the shots, though, I can't help you there. I'd say that the land's gotten worse over the years (come on. the governments in South America are often corrupt, and, if not, there's still little money to spend) and the fact that Salles made it look like a travelogue (which I don't agree with, but whatever) only strengthens the idea that, well, the cinematography is strong. Could you really ask for more, though? Salles took advantage of his environment to depict the atmosphere that Guevara spoke of in his book. Given that it shouldn't be effect heavy, I'd say it's a great job. And, if you don't get my point...consider the difference between cinematography and special effects. Cinematography is a moving form of photography. In that context, Diaries is stunning. Hero, on the other hand, uses a bunch of techniques to look stunning...

2. Yeah, there's a bias, but...who cares? Anyone who tackles the autobiography would've made it slanted towards Che. There's a bias in almost every movie. Yeah, Salles obviously sympathizes with Guevara, but don't mix the two things up. There wasn't any controversy caused by the visit. Guevara's trip was something he did in his youth. Only later did he become the menace you (and I) know him as. Diarios de motocicleta has been availble, as a book, for awhile. Nothing in the movie glamorized Guevara. It's a faithful adaptation and, plus, it's not like Guevara is going to be speaking of his own crimes overseas. Or Granado. They probably weren't recorded. The only thing that was on a PRIVATE journey was that left in the memoirs by Granado and Guevara. If these two books are insightful and beautiful, in both their insight and writing style, a film adaptation that simply translates it to english doesn't have a bias.

If you didn't get my point (I'm not sure I do either), basically...: Salles made the movie because, yes, he did have an appreciation for Guevara, but the movie is a faithful adaptation that doesn't go out of its way to portray Guevara as an angel or anything. Chances are, if you read the book without knowing who the author was (and any background on this particular journey), you'd find him to be a caring individual too. It has nothing to do with how Salles made the film. And, don't speak about being objective. As I said, you're only left with these two sources and that's all you can take. This journey wasn't controversial. If it were an overall Guevara biography, you could make that claim, but right now you're only dealing with personal information that didn't become major news or anything. It's kind of hard being objective when it only involves one person...

I realize I won't get you to change your pathetic grade, but again, I think your reasons are absurd. The only real claim you make is that it's a bit cliched and sappy. Then again, dolcevita made that point around four months ago.

And, yeah, I know I'm rambling on. It's 11:45 and I feel obliged to address your claim that the movie is "oversimplified."

Listen, I don't think you understand it all. Hero had perfect opportunities to display great cinematography, The Motorcycle Diaries had less of them. If, for instance, you have a movie that takes place in one room for the whole time, you simply can't have out-of-this-world cinematpgraphy in it, no matter how you try. The Motorcycle Diaries did the best it could as far as cinematography goes, I am not saying that it could have been better. It is not a David Fincher or a Zhang Yimou film. It used it's opportunities and the cinematography was good, pretty good. But it was nowhere close the best examples of cinematography I have seen.

There are two kinds of movies. One kind that relies more on the story and the acting and the other one that relies on the technical aspects. Rarely two are mixed in one movie. The Motorcycle Diaries is the former. None of its technical aspects, NONE, are particulary outstanding.



Only because you have a crush on Gael García Bernal, it doesn't mean everyone is required to like this movie

Do you understand one of the reasons people dislike Hero? Because it sympathizes with tyranny. Autobiography or not, you need to stay objective and bring in your own angles and persepctive into the movie. I mean, hey, let's just adapt "Mein Kampf" and show poor Germans and Hitler being exploited by the "evil Jews". That'd be a faithful adaptation of the book, wouldn't it?

Oh and trying to accept other people's opinions instead of banging your head against the wall in rage would be a good step towards some respect

I will disagree on cinematography. The fact that someone could film something in one room and not have us bored to tears actually means they are spectacular cinematographers. I believe many people put foreward that opinion when I cut down on Collateral's cinematography because it was just the interior of a cab. Many people pointed out the movement in the background, tension through looking through rearview mirrors, etc. On second though, I agree with them. Cinematography doesn't just have to be sweeping vistas. And sweeping vistas don't necessarily make cinemtography great either. Everyone here knows I thought Hero had hokey kitschy cinematography.

I think Diaries had far better technical qualities that Hero. Better editting, better cinema, better...well, remember Hero got the lowest grade out of any movie I reviewed last year.



Yes, andaroo said the same thing in another thread on this. That he couldn't get all that into it because it was, afterall, Che. You make a good point as to why people would be uncomfortable with the topic. I guess it has to do with exposure? I don't know, alot of people only learn about Che through personal information stories. I know we didn't, say, study him in school. He has a cult following here because of his literature his speeches, etc. Not his methods. I actully think Diaries tried to go the safe route and glamorize his ideals, not his actions, by focusing on this earlier part of his life. It would have been a comepletely different movie if they'd tried to sentimentalize him with a gun in his hand.

On the other hand, that might be subtlty of the director. Clearly they were sympathetic towards Che, and wanted to paint a picture pro-revolution, so chose this particular period when he was an inoffensive teen. I don't know, some people could seperate it from whom he later became, some people couldn't. I could argue why do you love Hero so much when it outright proclaimed the government's right to kill civilians? You managed to seperate the content from the technicals, as you put it. And I think Diaries made that even easier by not directly dealing with the content. They put a disclaimer up in the beginning of the movie that it wasn't political even.

I don't know. Diaries is a tricky one. I did my review for it asap at the time, not letting it sink in fully. I honestly think I'd probably give it a B+ now. That's still pretty good, but their are definately alot of points of contention with this movie even above the rows of waving lepers.

If a movie about people in a room is not boring it is usually more thanks to the great dialogue than the cinematography itself. Some movies just need more than cinematography. In The Motorcycle Diaries, cinematography wasn't crucial, in Hero it was.

I think Hero was a technical masterpiece, even though it was devoid of a screenplay.





A disclaimer?

I liked Hero because it was somewhat interesting and it was a techincal masterpiece. I liked The Motorcycle Diaries because of the acting, the chemistry between the leads and the coming-of-age road trip storyline. I give both the exact same rating, a strong B (i.e. 7.5/10). Both have strengths and weaknesses. I think Hero's plot wasnt even strong enough to try and propagate tyrany and dictatorship.

I didn't want to see Guevara killing people or anything in the movie, I would have just prefered even a couple of more slight hints to his persona that we all know because otherwise, as I said, you can cinematically adapt Mein Kampf and show Jews as evil, heh. When the director takes on such a touchy subject, I think it's he must be aware of all sides and aspects of it and provide a completely unbiased view.

Yes. At the beginning remember some text appears on the screen that says something along the lines of "This is not the story of politicos, it is simply a story of two men that later went on to become reknown internationally, and one summer when their lives happened to coincide. This is not a movie about their politics, just a movie about a road trip they took when they were young together that greatly affected them." Something like that. Remember it. Its like the director tried to pre-emp audiances going "Yeah, but its Che."

This isn't to say Che doesn't have a large following here. Either for ideals, tactics, or both. So even if a great er connection was made, doesn't mean everyone would be turned off by it. If there's one thing The Interpreter was smart in pointing out, once someone is assassinated, alot of their past actions are martyrized. I am not personally going to weigh in on the subject since I admittedly know less about the topic than I should. In general Latin America guerilla tactics are not what I feel most informed on.

The movie relied on that as well. Che his poster now (please refer to kidrock's avatar) and alot of people may not make the kind of associations they do with Hitler (nor do I think one should anyways, they are two completely different figures).

They only refer to Che's future once, when they are at Macchu Piccu and he say one can't have a revolution without guns. That's about it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about the technical aspect comparisons between Hero and Diaries though.

There wasn't such an exclaimer when I saw the movie...

As for Che's cult, I think it's pretty stupid since most kids who are wearing Guevara shirts and hang up his posters don't even really know who it was and have no idea about his ideals. Meh, not a big fan of that... Besides that, it's such an irony, since he was pretty much against capitalism and now he's overcommecialized

I remember the mention at Macchu Picchu. Now what I wanted were more hints like that one. I appreciated the one that was made, but I felt it wasn't enough.

As for Hero, I guess we just have different preferences. I like showy examples of technical aspects moreso than subtle ones. Same usually goes for acting.

Really? It was a little one screen text message right before the movie started that said pretty much what I stated above. Anyways, if it wasn't in your version (I don't see why they would cut it) than there it is. I don't know if that affects your opinion at all? It didn't really affect mine, except for the fact that I did notice it was a disclaimer. Which means the director did assume some people were going to catch onto the fact this was a Che biography and not just two random college kids.



Hit the nail on the head. I don't mean to say revolutionaries shouldn't and don't have their fans, and guerilla culture in South America is very complex, but mostly I just think he's a cultural icon now. I think alot of people were not bothered in the least by his portrayel in the film.

I wasn't bothered too much, but admittedly I brought into the disclaimer.

I think the director was trying to shift the focus away from a historic telling and make it one of philosophy. He clearly liked Che's ideals, if not his actions, so chose to focus on the ideals. Explore the landscape in which those ideals were formed, and leave it to some other director to criticize the actions as a moment in history. He meant for the movie to espouse egalitariansim, socialism, humanism. He chose to do this using two memoirs by famous men, but focusing on a part of their pives before they became part of the international community.

They refocussed the discussion in this way. If one widdled down what the respective movies (rather than the men) were trying to say, Hero really did relay a different message than Diaries. Diaries didn't say it was great to pick up a gun and shoot, or that the government should be top-heavy and nationalism is great. It didn't. What did Diaries actually say? You Mein Kampf example doesn't hold up, because the movie version would say Jews are evil oppressors. If a smart director did a movie about the social envirnment Mein Kampf was written in, it would be something different altogether.



Yes. At least it was smartly inserted unlike the random quotes about jews in Downfall we both agree felt tacked on.



oh yes, I'll past andaroo's comments into this thread, since he started one in a similar tone that got no responses earlier in the year.

But, see, if The Motorcycle Diaries depicted Guevara as a bad guy, I can see you shouting out in this same thread that it "oversimplified" things. Truth is, Salles went in to film a road trip on an old, dusty motorcycle. You seem to expect that, just because Guevara is a "bad" guy, the film should make that obvious even though it has NO RELEVANCE in terms of the actual, documented story that Salles WANTED to film.

Look, you gave me a tough time about wanting to ignore every detail of Germany's history to prevent Downfall from becomming so fucking boring and repetitive. Yet, you're doing the same thing here. You want to "add" things into the movie that don't belong there in the first place.

dolce, I don't agree with one of your points. I remember the line but I don't remember if it was a narrator or Che saying it. I don't see a problem with it. If anything, that's just a warning. Even with the message there, controversy sparked over Che once the movie was released. The director's statement there is just, like, a heads up that people shouldn't focus on Che's character AFTER his trip. The movie isn't about politics, and while I can't necessarily defend that line, I think it might have helped stop the claims that Salles and Redford glamorize Che and whatnot.

Yeah, they do only refer to Che's future once or twice (if you count the scene where he gives the toast after dancing). The Che depicted in the book and the Che as we know him (since we're ignorant, that's pretty much JUST the bad. I don't idolize the guy, but I do think he was thoughtful in his early age and just because he turned towards the bad doesn't mean his comments shouldn't be considered) are different. But, it's not like he had the whole revolution thing planned out on his journey and that the book contains all the nasty thoughts. It doesn't.

While the credits at the end with the little info on Che could've commented on the revolution and his part, I think the movie is better off leaving it out. It's not in the book. It's a different "person." And, it's not even THAT relevant (yeah, maybe Macchu Picchu gave him some inspiration and something to think about, but let's not make those kinds of assumptions here). It's a disservice to include that. It'd be like someone making a movie on Michael Jackson, based on his own autobiography as a twenty year old (okay. so he didn't write it. just an example...) and having the filmmaker choose to attack Jackson on pedophilia.

I don't think you get the difference between subtly, but certainly hinting and obvious outlining and attacking. Get back to me when you learn the difference and when your crush on Bernal is over because then you're in a state of being able to provide a more objective view of things

No one was saying it. It was written, right before the movie, and my assumption is it was the director's intention to include it for the very reasons you mentioned. Namely, that Salles was sympathetic to the ideals of the man, and chose to focus on the earlier, formative, moment for that reason. Salles like the socialist commentary, not the later violence. His movie was about those principles.

I guess this would be an interesting question to anyone who agrees with the above statement of intention. Would the movie have worked better had it not been associated with Che, but with a nameless young idealist? A generic hybrid of "future revolutionary" without the direct associations? It could have been, imo.

Well, there wasn't such a disclaimer when I saw it, but it doesn't really matter anyway, so...




Well, I see it from the perspective of people who don't know much about history, young people who are wannabe-Che Guevara fans and think it's "cool" to walk aroundwith Guevara shirts and everything. I know plenty of people like that. Now if they see the movie all they'll think is "What a great guy Che Guevara was! So admirable". Well you get my point. They see him as pretty much perfect and that's what he was mostly portrayed like. I mean, he is nice, genuine, helpful, friendly, fearless, selfless...he's the male version of Mother Theresa and I can't help, but ignore the fact that he wasn't exactly like that. Movies on historical personas influence the people's pereception of these personas and I think the depiction of Che, while faithful to the sources, was a bit too biased for my taste. I understand if the director was simply fascinated by the road trip of these two friends, but if so, I'd have prefered if he has chosen fictional characters rather than historical figures.



Indeed, but it left me wanting more and hoping for more.




I agree on that mostly...

Just that I thought that Bernal and de la Serna were equally good and my favorite scene was probably the athmatic attack on the ship.

You still don't get my point. You're claiming that the film oversimplified Che's "persona" because it didn't portray the bad. However, if the bad you refer to happened a while after his journey, I invite you to recall the presidential election in '04. Vietnam. National guard. Could anyone escape those words? I'd say that most became turned off by Kerry because of his unwillingless to drop Bush's record. something that shouldn't have had any relevance to Bush's character and ability to run a country years later. From 5-7 years later (there's a huge gap, but, still...), Che might've been influenced by what he recorded in his narration, but that doesn't mean that what later happened was someting already prevalent in him when he made his road trip.

You seem to want to change "history." We're not discussing Salles' intentions, or, we shouldn't be. He made a film, we saw it out of personal interest, and that's that. The Motorcycle Diaries is an adaptation. You should know that. Thus, if the book doesn't focus primarily on his growing interest in revolution, why should the movie? Even if you don't have respect for Che, it's still a disgrace to tarnish his work just to accomplish this "objectivity." (the objectivity which, frankly, I don't understand because of my "deep love" for Bernal... )

Considering that people change for the better (or worse, in Che's case), I cannot understand why you find a twist in a non-fictional story necessary. The only possible claim I can fathom is that his lines are so insightful and eloquently written that the lines might give someone the wrong overall impression. However, we must also understand that these scenes depict Che as his diary does. The lines are directly taken from the diary. We must understand that this was a seperate part of his life and he was a different person who, perhaps, hadn't yet been torn by popularity (among the other people who found revolution necessary), recognition, and need to do something. However, with the disclaimer that you didn't see, I think Salles is clearly letting the audience know that he does not intend to force the audience to feel a way about Che. I appreciate the disclaimer a lot, as many will have grudges against Che regardless of what the movie does and, at least with the disclaimer, the director is acknowledging people's differing viewpoints.

I think you don't get my point. I think that despite all the faithfulness to the diaries and the book by Grenada, the director should have inserted some personal objectivity into it. I, for one, don't believe that someone becomes a completely different person throughout their life. Whatever he has done after the time period that was in the movie, it was in one way or another already in him. It was in him all the time. Some of our traits are just subtle and hidden at times, we might not even know of them. But at an age of 24 the character of people is usually formed in a certain way, so whatever it was that made him act a certain way in the future (after the movie) was already in him, as shown by the scene at Macchu Picchu. If it was already in him, it could have been pointed out a bit more. The audience deserves that, I think.

torrino, I partially agree with you... but explain this:


See, to me, the film was primarily about his growing interest and introduction to revolution, and his founding belief in a communist solution.

This is tricky...

Downfall has been brought up, but Hitler is, in many ways an easy character to explore because he's so mined and explored on film. You can make a film like Max and explore an element of his character before the monster, because the underlying history of his life is well established. Max and Downfall should never be a person's introduction to the historical Hitler.

The only... eye opening... thing about Che is that I would guess a vast amount of American youth (heck, the public) are generally ignorant to his life, his tough politics, and his political stances. He is iconized by bands such as Rage Against the Machine in videos, but rarely if ever is he discussed. Even Margret Cho has a DVD out which mocks the famous photo taken of him. I was 25 before I actually looked into and learned about his character, and he is extremely complex. As much as it bothers me to see people idolizing and worshiping people like Bush, it is disheartening to see college age students hang up Che banners in their room, knowing he supported some pretty flippin' awful things. Yeah, Cuba has the right to manifest destiny, and people have the right to be treated like human beings, but Che is the father of guerilla warfare, and fits the definition of war criminal to a T.

So what's bothering me about The Motorcycle Diaries, is not necessarily the film itself, maybe just the timing of it. There is a slight fear on my part that people won't look into his background or won't consider what else he's done, and won't consider it a whole picture. In a landscape littered by opinions and reflections on Che's life, this might have been a more welcome study, but as it's really the only movie ever to get mass distribution about Che (I think?) I think it deserves to be approached cautiously and with a certain level of discussion associated.

I also say, adaptations are tricky. The book is a second person memoir and the movie is an adaptation of a memoir. In both of those situations, there is room for adaptation and alteration of history to make a better book or a better cinematic point. There is no such thing as a non-fiction film. Even in documentary land.

One of these examples is the leper scenes near the end. I thought there was a lot of political commentary and maybe slant in those scenes. And when dealing with someone that controversial, these kinds of discussions come with the territory.

I agree, only that I think this fear is not very slight. You have no idea how many young people actually believe "history on film". The thing is that there are so few movies about Che and this one is the most prominent one thus far (until Soderbergh finally gets his "Che" off the ground...hopefully before Benicio del Toro turns 70). Therefore, whatever perception many people will have about Che, will be based on this movie. Some friends of mine want to see the film, just because "che is cool", even though they know little to nothing about him ](*,)



I very much agree (:shock:) on that one.