Both myself and my father agreed that Che Part Two was far better than Che Part One.

I do feel it’s a better film, but perhaps one also has to take into account that my disappointment with part One may have prepared my expectations for Part Two such that I was always going to get more from Part Two.

That said, I feel that it’s possible that in making two films of this style, perhaps Soderbergh found his stride a little later. Or perhaps the second film was less complex in nature, and so communicated more clearly with the audience.

Either way I found it to be a more compelling and engaging film, with the characters drawing you in so much more so than in Part One.

Che Part Two framed the Bolivian outing somewhat better than it did the Cuban revolution. We understood more why Che felt revolution was necessary. We saw the poverty, and we heard the rebel’s arguments, as made to the peasants, why they were fighting.

While arguably more could have been shown to illustrate the need for revolution, I understood that for the most part this film was from Che Guevara’s point of view and followed closely his personal experience.

However, since diversions were made to show the American involvement and the Government reaction, I would argue that more diversions could have been made to clarify the rebel perspective on the state of Bolivia and why revolution was deemed crucial.

Possibly more could have been done to delve deeper into the faults with the Bolivian revolution attempt, and perhaps the strategic errors on Che’s part, but I can understand that this might have meant referring to later analysis rather than Che’s own diaries which the film was based upon.

Having not read the diaries I can’t say how faithful to them the film was though.

This film has all the incredible realism, beautiful direction and superb acting of Part One, but in a more rounded and finished package.

Oh, by the way, does anyone find these review useful, interesting or entertaining?