Che

Sami

Just finished the second part of the disc. Not as good as the first but still a very good movie. I understand this movie was a story from his side of the fence so anyone who can not even try to understand why socialism exist should not bother watching this. Anyone who takes it as a movie and not necessarily a true version of what really happened, should definitely check this out. If you haven't seen Motorcycle Diaries yet and/or is unfamiliar of who Ernesto "Che" Guavara was, I recommend seeing that first.

Beautiful South American scenery, great acting by Del Toro and overall a very enjoyable movie experience.

dorokusai

I've seen it but he's still a thug and a murderer. He'll spawn another 20 generations of tshirts I'm sure.

nooshinjohn

dorokusai wrote: »

I've seen it but he's still a thug and a murderer. He'll spawn another 20 generations of tshirts I'm sure.

+1... this film is nothing more than propaganda to influence the minds of the young that do not understand history. Che was a butcher and a murdering thug, nothing more, nothing less.

Sami

nooshinjohn wrote: »

+1... this film is nothing more than propaganda to influence the minds of the young that do not understand history. Che was a butcher and a murdering thug, nothing more, nothing less.

It's propaganda from the other side of the fence that Americans are used to. It's his side of the story, based on his diaries. There were thugs and murderers on both sides, and there still are, I am sure of that. As I said, take it for what it is, nothing more.

nooshinjohn

Sami wrote: »

It's propaganda from the other side of the fence that Americans are used to. It's his side of the story, based on his diaries. There were thugs and murderers on both sides, and there still are, I am sure of that. As I said, take it for what it is, nothing more.

"If the missiles had remained (in Cuba),We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims."
- Ernesto 'Che" Guevara, November 1962.

Yeah.... I think I will take him at his word. His actions speak for themselves. Imagine a film made from Hilter's or Stalin's point of view. They would portay themselves to be saints as well. In these cases, we know better. Che, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Amin, Pot... murderers and butchers all. Why does the left need to make them out to be respectable guys that are just mis-understood? A better question is why do We The People let them?

Sami

John, why did you leave out Pinochet from the list?

p.s. I hate communism as much as you guys do, I'm neither on the left or on the extreme right

nooshinjohn

Sami wrote: »

John, why did you leave out Pinochet from the list?

There are just way to many to list. I don't see myself as being to the far left or right either. I just wonder when teaching true history in school became a bad thing.

Sami

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There are just way to many to list. I don't see myself as being to the far left or right either. I just wonder when teaching true history in school became a bad thing.

Oh please, there is no such thing as true history. Haven't you watched Braveheart...

Just wondering since all the other dictators you listed are communist, the one that isn't was a ****, you didn't list any butchers on the other side like Pinochet was.

Anyways, it was a good movie, and if someone believes that was the true history what happened then that's their problem. I have been pointing out that this is based on his diary to point out the obvious bias. The movie is not for everyone.

dorokusai

Braveheart wasn't true! Damn you Sami.

nooshinjohn

Sami wrote: »

Oh please, there is no such thing as true history. Haven't you watched Braveheart...

Just wondering since all the other dictators you listed are communist, the one that isn't was a ****, you didn't list any butchers on the other side like Pinochet was.

Anyways, it was a good movie, and if someone believes that was the true history what happened then that's their problem. I have been pointing out that this is based on his diary to point out the obvious bias. The movie is not for everyone.

Perhaps I should have asked when will we stop teaching "revisionist history" in which the bad guys become martyrs and the good guys become the enemy. Regardless of what you have been led to believe about Augusto Pinochet, he most decidedly has more in common with Facist leaders such as Benito Mousellini, who was also a leftist. I agree however that BOTH SIDES have their fair share of nutjobs and skeletons in the closet. What unites wackos on the left and the right is a dirty little secret called PROGRESSIVISM. This is something that needs to be exposed for the sham that it is and destroyed.

I fail to see however, how this movie can possibly be defined as good or worth watching in light of the fact that it strays so far from the truth of it's subject matter. People tend to believe more in what they see, and the message of the film is that Che was a great leader of the People, fighting for the opressed, when in fact it was HE HIMSELF that was the oppressor.

I get sick to my stomach seeing this terrorist's face on T-shirts, action figures and lunch-boxes. I want to puke over the answers given by children when asked who the guy is on their shirt... and they call him a HERO! :mad:

Sorry for the rant, but I must disagree completely with your take on the subject at hand. Also sorry for turning political with this, but with the subject matter it is hard not to... I am out and will post in this thread no further.

Sami

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Regardless of what you have been led to believe about Augusto Pinochet, he most decidedly has more in common with Facist leaders such as Benito Mousellini, who was also a leftist.

Pinochet was a dictator backed by the US government because his opposition was the communist party. Maybe he wasn't a far right wing but because of his opposition he's one of those on "the other side of the fence" that people tend to leave out when talking about murderous dictators. That's my view of him. Then there is Batista of course.

nooshinjohn

Sami wrote: »

Pinochet was a dictator backed by the US government because his opposition was the communist party. Maybe he wasn't a far right wing but because of his opposition he's one of those on "the other side of the fence" that people tend to leave out when talking about murderous dictators. That's my view of him. Then there is Batista of course.

All of the morons we have mentioned, whether communist, facist or whatever else they were, each and every one of them were PROGRESSIVES. They all believed that it was OK to do whatever was needed to usher in their perfect Utopia. If that meant the wholesale slaughter of innocents, it was ok because the "ends justify the means". I use red to highlight the word because there is more blood on the hands of this movement and those that ascribe to its beliefs than can ever be known, but it is a safe bet that hundreds of millions is not far off.

Che is a small time player in that club, but the bigger story of PROGRESSIVISM needs to be told so that it can never happen anywhere again. Said I was done here... I am out.

cstmar01

I wrote a huge paper about Che (45 pages) for one of my many Latin American Politics class. I totally even forgot this movie was out there when I did my paper and might have to go back to see how it lined up. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Just an FYI why I had to do the paper. I was a poli sci major and we all have to have a focus on different governments we study besides US, such as Latin American, Western European, Tribal Governments ect. It was not because I was worshiping the guy or anything, just an overview of what he did and his life and how his story has carried on today and his followings ect. We had to select a leader and trace their lives (lame I know) but can be interesting.

dorokusai

Is it possible to read that paper? I'd be interested.

Ricardo

This side of the fence, that side of the fence....You first need to see the fence, then you can talk about it.

Sami

Ricardo wrote: »

This side of the fence, that side of the fence....You first need to see the fence, then you can talk about it.

The fence is usually quite large and the people on the other sides are not even close to the middle. Maybe that's why they are called extremists?

George Grand

I saw the original "Che" a long time ago. Maybe 1968 or 69. I think it starred Omar Sharif as Che. It was a long time ago, I can't remember for sure. Roseanne Barr might have been in it too for all I remeber. It was pretty bad, but it was still back when you saw two movies every time you went to the the-AY-ter. It got a lot better when The Sand Pebbles, a GREAT movie, hit the screen that night.
Almost a LoMoron review, but not quite.

kuntasensei

I would characterize this movie as "interesting" rather than "good". The first part is the better of the two. I found myself more interested in the documentary about their use of the Red One camera than the actual movie itself.

pmckeealaska

Hundreds of thousands of Native Americans would probably see the US governement as Progressives given the wholesale slaughter our governement engaged in in the name of manifest destiny. I mean, I know that was long ago, but our side has as much blood on its hands as any dictatorship. And ALL history is revisionist.

pmckeealaska

Um, unfortunately it is. Dozens of tribes were wiped off the face of the continent before their language and culture could ever be studied. There have been two major studies done to try and estimate the number of native americans killed since European settlement. One of these was conducted by the US governement. These estimates, together with estimates by a variety of ethnologists and scholarly books put the number of native americans in what is now the US at between 10 and 18 million at the time of European contact, which is a huge difference in numbers to be sure. What is not in dispute is that by the end of the 19th century, there were a mere 250,000 native americans left in this country. Where did they all go? They didnt just disappear into thin air did they? The US governments own estimates of direct killing of native peoples (through either direct warfare, starvation, or intentional introduction of disease) is between 2 and 6 million. Now, I realize that this is yet another vast range, but if one even entertains the upper estimate, it already equals the holocaust. Even if its closer to the low end, what should we say? Oh, our government ONLY killed 2 milllion people?

nooshinjohn

deleted... said I was out and I meant it.