Posts Tagged ‘Matt Damon’

 

Up in the Air & Invictus

Grounded for Life

January 22nd, 2010

watch-up-in-the-air-movie-online-free-460x2751
“Up in the Air” is a timely film. Interspersed with the plight of a narcissistic hired-to-fire frequent flyer named Ryan Bingham are sobering portraits of actual folks discarded during this current economic maelstrom. The movie also has a timeless quality. Based on Walter Kim’s 2001 novel, the crisply clever screenplay by director Jason Reitman and co-writer Sheldon Turner addresses universal themes which bubble up when one re-evaluates life’s priorities as a cog in the capricious corporate rat race. Reitman’s third feature — following “Thank You for Smoking” and “Juno” — is a contemporary and classic story told with smarts and deft comedy, both light and dark. He makes films which may be a bit too varnished – with protagonists whose slick dialogue obfuscates as well as entertains – but they are confident and observant projects while perhaps not as penetrating or poignant as they first appear.

Bingham (George Clooney) works for a company, Career Transition Counseling, which is hired by businesses too scared to do their own firing. It’s his dream job; Bingham is, eerily, perfectly suited psychologically to his profession; he has an almost Zen-like ability to sit serenely across the table from the crushed and wounded. (Withering outbursts are delivered by both professional actors, and non-actors who lost their jobs in the recession and were hired by Reitman for these roles.) Bingham appears to have a personality which can experience the wrenching angst without taking it onboard; he’s like an emotional Sky Miles loofah.

A bachelor in his 40s, he loves his itinerant life. Bingham dashes through a pampered life soaking up daily thanks at ticket counters and checkout desks. Contrary to the vast majority of sane individuals, he adores airports. He logs 322 days on the road and “43 miserable days at home” in an Omaha apartment so antiseptically unscathed it appears to be inhabited by the world’s dullest monk. During one of his Admirals Club layovers, he meets a fellow addicted business traveler, played by Vera Farmiga. They engage in a high-stakes card game, flinging credit cards and reward cards of ever increasing status in a sassy and flirtatious riposte. They’re turned on by this elite game of Snap. Farmiga plays Alex Goran with bravado reminiscent of Rosalind Russell.

But perhaps this is apropos as Clooney is as close as we have in modern American film to the Hollywood star of the 1940s and 1950s; he’s like William Holden, but with more sincerity. With charming crow’s feet creasing his face with every rakish smile, Clooney is so consummately good looking that he appears to have a full mouth even though his upper lip has the slim definition of a cigarette case. In a year when he’s produced outstanding work – the wicked comic mania of Lyn Cassady in the unfairly maligned “The Men Who Stare at Goats” and crafty voiceover work as the titular “Fantastic Mr. Fox” – his performance as Ryan Bingham rounds off the decade in style.

The tranquility of Bingham’s nomadic modus vivendi – which could be dubbed “Ryan Air” — is jettisoned by the influence of a tightly-wound upstart named Natalie Keener (the commendable Anna Kendrick), who impresses her CTC bosses with a radical company overhaul combining cost cutting with modern technology. A recent Ivy League graduate, Natalie has devised a business plan with the painfully forced amalgamation of the words global and local: “Glocal.” This means that the firings will be done remotely from Nebraska. Desperate and defiant, Ryan takes Natalie along on a road trip. Natalie’s presence initiates in Ryan a slowly gestating process of reassessment. (In a nice touch, it’s not Natalie’s example which directly leads to Ryan’s contemplation.) He begins to think about relationships and family. He ponders the hollowness of his life and a facile side gig as a motivational speaker. The treatment of his predicament is believable and bolstered by Clooney’s strong bearing, even if, at times, the scenes, especially during a visit to his hometown for his sister’s wedding, feel cursory. As his protégé, of a sort, Kendrick delivers a nicely nuanced performance. Natalie is driven professionally, but retains a likable innocence, admitting to Ryan and Alex during a confessional conversation in an airport terminal that she desires the type of man who the “only thing he loves more than me is his Golden Lab.” But the character of Natalie is too young to be sympathetic. Feeling sorry for her, especially in this economy, doesn’t seem appropriate. And the film bears the smooth sheen of a James L. Brooks film. “Up in the Air” is worth checking out even if Reitman fashions a movie whose title could very well sum up a viewer’s ambiguity.

Invictus
“Invictus” is a solid film from the prodigious Clint Eastwood mounted on a stunning central performance from Morgan Freeman. The story scans the brief time between Nelson Mandela’s release from prison on February 11, 1990, to the summer of 1995, when South Africa won the Rugby World Cup. The vast majority of the film covers the even more narrow period between Mandela’s inauguration as president in May 1994 to the final match in June 1995. The new leader envisions South Africa’s hosting of the illustrious sporting event as an invaluable component towards the “reconciliation” of the new “Rainbow Nation.” Eastwood quickly captures the simultaneous moods of expectancy and trepidation in a land of fractious race relations. Into this unenviable, volatile cauldron, Mandela steps with graceful determination.

The film is firmly centered on the phenomenal performance by Freeman as Nelson Mandela. Freeman avoids caricature, which would have been occurred if he’d adopted Mandela’s distinctive, pinched speaking voice. Instead he provides the audience with an experience more impressive and profound than mimicry. It’s not an impersonation, it’s an embodiment. His Mandela, as appears to be the case in actuality, is strong and humble. Freeman portrays Mandela as regal but approachable, opinionated but free of haughtiness. He is inspirational and influential but not dominating, let alone domineering. Mandela gains esteem from both supporters and opponents through the sincere melding of actions and words. (One of the films best sequences chronicles how Mandela appeals to a newly created South African sports council to support the Spingboks, the national rugby side historically symbolic of the apartheid system. To attest to the cultural resistance, in June 1994, black South Africans avidly cheered for England in a match held in South Africa.) When he utters “Forgiveness liberates the soul” to a revolutionary comrade in his integrated security detail, it doesn’t sound like new age twaddle but as a reasoned belief bred by 27 imprisoned years, years counseled by the words of the poem by the late 19th century poet William Earnest Henley which Mandela kept on a scrap of paper during his incarceration and from which the film takes its title. “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul,” the poem concludes. As presented by Freeman, the extraordinary Mandela does not come across as a mythic figure. Instead he exemplifies an honorable, heroic everyman. (As befitting a self-effacing everyman, he is fallible: the film hints at the difficulties that the father of a country faces in his own family life.)

For a sports film, the thrilling match reenactments are well constructed. Matt Damon bulks up admirably to authentically play Francois Pienaar, the triumphant South African captain whose own father initially despises and mocks Mandela. Damon, looking nothing like his pudgy pencil pusher in “The Informant!,” compliments Freeman in a decidedly secondary, but crucial role. The script by Anthony Peckham from John Carlin’s non-fiction account avoids cliché. The soundtrack, however, is not so lucky. In several instances, a scene is undercut by a hideous pop song. But the soundtrack is the only contentious element in a proficient motion picture propelled by a history lesson modern and eternal.


Mary and Max & Ponyo

Pen Pals Mesmerize in Hand Made Tale, Prodigy Returns With Fish Out of Water

November 13th, 2009

mary-and-max
Molded in clay but as brittle as bone china, Mary and Max are the fragile souls explored in Adam Elliot’s heart-rending yet hilarious stop-motion tour de force. Based on the true story of the 20-year correspondence between vulnerable pen pals, “Mary and Max” is lavished with exquisite, earthy detail and gives us two of the most richly realized and captivating characters presented in film this year. Elliot won the Best Animated Short Film Oscar for 2003s “Harvie Krumpet,” a 22-minute cavalcade of a long-suffering life. With this self described “clayography,” the Australian animator has added more than an hour to his storytelling but lost none of his emotional immediacy and comic esprit.

Mary Daisy Dinkle is a stumpy, bespectacled 8-year-old from Spotswood, a suburb of Melbourne. As noted in the flowery, funny script narrated superbly by Barry Humphries, Mary “has eyes the colour of muddy puddles and a birthmark the colour of poo.” Her father, Noel, works at a teabag factory, and retreats nightly to the backyard shed where he practices taxidermy on roadkill. Vera, her mother, is a sherry sloshing, anesthetized kleptomaniac who listens to the cricket, mindlessly avoiding the sticky wickets. Mary finds solace watching her favorite animated television show, “The Noblets,” while sitting on the settee with her pet rooster; Ethel, and supping on condensed milk. No pocket change to spare, she resourcefully makes her own Noblet toys with bits and bobs.

One day, in 1976, as her mother connives to filch from the local post office, Mary plops her finger on a random name in a New York City phone book and scribbles down the address. She sends a letter filled with the impertinent, inquiring questions only a child can ask without malice. Mary packs the envelope with her favorite sweets. The letter arrives at the dingy apartment of Max Jerry Horowitz, a 44-year-old overeating, depressive recluse with ears like skeleton keys. (This New York is blanched in the black and white of the Dead End Kids; conversely, Australia is filmed in the color of butterscotch.) Diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, he shares his cramped quarters with a one-eyed cat named Hal, a parakeet called Mister Biscuit and an imaginary companion who goes by the name of Mr. Ravioli who hunches on a stool in a corner reading self-help books. Max gorges on a steady diet of chocolate hotdogs. Without a family of his own, Max accepts the unaccustomed role of surrogate uncle, regaling Mary with the stories of his marvelous and mad life, and unmaliciously answering questions he normally didn’t contemplate; where do babies really come from? Voiced with pitch-perfect weary recitation by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Max is a Crumb character, with a morsel of magnanimity.

The technical achievement showcased in “Mary and Max” is tremendous. The film’s production notes detail how the crew of fifty spent fifty-seven weeks creating 132,480 individual frames. They built 212 puppets and painstakingly made 808 Earl Grey teabags; they also used twelve liters of water-based sex lube for all of the water features, including tears and a river. Elliot and his crew construct Mary and Max’s specific worlds meticulously; the density of effort displayed by the wrinkles in the wallpaper.

As the pen pals trade letters through the years, the story hardens and intensifies. Voiced by a strong Toni Collette once she’s a teen, Mary graduates from college, marries and embarks on a career as an author, with distressing consequences. Fundamentally morose and always anxious, Max becomes more troubled amidst his stream of consciousness laden by personal religious and social upheaval. Trembling, he replaces Mr. Ravioli on the stool. Extremely humorous yet strangulatingly sad, “Mary and Max,” like a chocolate hotdog, is bittersweet.

Over the past dozen years, anime legend Hayao Miyazaki has created a succession of vigorous and luminous animated films. “Princess Mononoke” hurtles along like Akira Kurosawa’s “The Hidden Fortress.” The Oscar winning “Spirited Away” is a stirring fairy tale, while “Howl’s Moving Castle” is an inventive kaleidoscope. Immensely epic, complex and bold, these magical works are filled consistently with spectacular images and Shakespearean-styled characters. By comparison, his latest film, “Ponyo,” the quaint tale of a precocious goldfish with human aspirations, appears slight. It possesses the lightest tone of the four most recent Miyazaki feature films released in North America. And while it may not have been crafted specifically for tykes, it’s the first of the four to garner a G rating. This isn’t in itself a condemnation, but “Ponyo” is appreciably less visceral than its PG-rated predecessors.

After a sumptuous, wordless introduction to a teeming underwater life, the film moves above surface when the wayward goldfish is discovered by Sosuke, a 5-year-old boy who lives in a seaside village. Ponyo’s distraught dad, Fujimoto — a former human who disavowed humanity for his elaborate subaquatic sanctuary, and who looks, disconcertingly, like present-day Barry Manilow – searches for his daughter. Fujimoto’s motivation for finding her seems more skewed to the impact her human transformation will have on the world if she completes her metamorphosis than for the safety of his daughter. (Strange by a long way and voiced by a perturbed Liam Neeson, he’s a dad who always seems to be taking his work home with him.)

The sequences in the sea are wonderful. And Miyazaki crafts a fabulous set piece where hurtling tsunami-like waves, made of giant fish under Fujimoto’s spell, swirl around the village as though on a Formula 1 circuit while Ponyo, the red-headed scamp, sprints across the heads of the massive fish. The scene is bolstered by the rousing orchestration from longtime collaborator Joe Hisaishi.

But the narrative on land feels underwhelming, even when the village is flooded by the aftermath of the diluvian deluge. Miyazaki returns to his common themes of the battle between nature and humans, and continues his use of empowered female leads, but the story lacks the depth and the characters lack the intricacy of his previous efforts. Sosuke’s mom, Lisa (voiced by Tina Fey), who works at a local nursing home, is an indistinguished characterization, and his father, Koichi (Matt Damon), is a boat pilot too rarely incorporated into the plot. (There is a nifty sequence where the father and son communicate by lighted Morse code with Sosuke flickering messages from the balcony of their hilltop home while Koichi returns signals from the bridge of his boat.) The supporting parts, such as the half-dozen residents of the nursing home, are perfunctory. When the goddess of the sea and Ponyo’s mother, Gran Mamare (an ethereal beauty voiced by Cate Blanchett) appears, she hovers tranquilly, a soothing presence with hair shimmering like a shampoo commercial. Miyazaki’s previous films were a tapestry. “Ponyo” is a comforter.


October 30th, 2009

The tireless Clint Eastwood returns in December with “Invictus,” which chronicles the five years from Nelson Mandela’s release from prison to his prominent role as President of South Africa to unify South Africa through the hosting of the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Morgan Freeman portrays Mandela and Matt Damon plays Francois Piennar, the victorious South African team captain.

Mark Macaskill of The Times discovers that “Robert Carlyle fans can buy a role in his new film.”

Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, and Kodi Smit-McPhee appear in November in the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road,” directed by John Hillcoat, who helmed 2005’s vastly impressive “The Proposition.”

“Antichrist” star Charlotte Gainsbourg reveals to Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle that “on the balance, all the naked things and the sex scenes were nothing compared to the grieving scenes.”

One Film Wonder: In 1980, South African director Jamie Uys made “The Gods Must Be Crazy,” which centered on Xi, a Saho bushman in the Kalahari Desert, who discovers a soft drink bottle and embarks on a journey to discard it. As “The Gods Must Be Crazy” was financed with South African government funds at a time of an international embargo, the film was marketed as a Botswanan film. Describing the work as a “highly popular and distorted film,” Canadian anthropologist Richard Lee noted in his book “The Dobe, Ju/hoansi” that “The Gods Must Be Crazy” inaccurately “tried to portray the Ju/’hoansi as pristine hunter-gatherers ‘untouched’ by civilization.” The film became a world-wide sensation. In North America, interest began in midnight movie houses, with the movie earning expanding distribution in 1984 and grossing more than $30 million.

Xi was portrayed by N!xau, a San, one of the indigenous peoples living in the region classified presently as South Africa and Namibia. Born circa 1944, he was paid a reported few hundred dollars for his performance in the film. For the 1989 sequel, “The Gods Must Be Crazy II,” he negotiated a purported salary in the hundreds of thousands. N!xau appeared in only 4 other films, each one of them a sequel in the “The Gods Must Be Crazy” franchise; the last three, which were not directed by Uys, were set in Hong Kong and filmed in Cantonese. A herdsman, he returned to Tsumkwe in the Otjozondjua region of Namibia to live on his farm with his family. N!xau died in 2003.


The Informant!

Sex, Lysine, and Audiotape

October 9th, 2009

info
Marketed with Matt Damon’s exultant, gawping grin jutting from the promotional posters and an exclamation point thrust into the title as befitting a suburban superhero, “The Informant!,” is muckier than its advertising insinuates. By the time the aftermath has settled in this incredulous tale of corn espionage – based on Kurt Eichenwald’s nonfiction expose of the highest ranking corporate whistleblower in U.S. history – Steven Soderbergh has concocted an adroit film with an absorbing slurry of poignancy mixed with the hilarity.

A biochemist by education, Mark Whitacre (Damon) is an emerging executive with agricultural conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland in the fall of 1992. Though he’s mounted the upper echelon of capitalism by his early thirties, in the dull mega-business culture of the bland leading the bland, he’s an unexceptional Midwesterner. With 30 doughy pounds added to Damon’s physique, he walks with an awkward, overcompensating bound. Mark’s suits are tailor made, but apparently not for him, and he wears ties the pattern of a Golden Girl’s blouse; he’s also the type of fellow who keeps his tie tucked under his shoulder harness while he’s driving. His thatch of sandy-blond hair is the consistency of trimmed wheatgrass and his shadowy moustache curls around the edge of his upper lip and droops over the corners of his mouth, just a few forgetful mornings from emerging as a porn stache. There’s an undertone of stiffness in his interaction with co-workers; it’s as though Mark, an academic posing as one of the boys, is continually afraid he’ll be called out for a clumsy golf swing. As a composite, he possesses the genial disposition of Ned Flanders and the stilted countenance of Eddie Murphy’s Mr. White.

When the FBI investigates a groundless blackmailing scheme at the company, Mark is befriended by Special Agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula, looking decidedly Vulcan), and spurred by his wife, Ginger (Melanie Lynskey), to reveal the existence of an international price fixing scheme. Rimmed by unremarkable eyewear, Mark’s eyes wildly flicker as he goes undercover; the corporate manager agrees to be fitted with a wire, obviously enamored with the spy’s life. He globe trots from Tokyo to Zurich to Hawaii, as his deepening surveillance draws out the machinations of the sodium gluconate and lysine cost-controlling cabal.

Damon has emerged as one of the most versatile American actors; he’s comfortable in marquee-topping blockbusters, and tiny indie projects (“Gerry,” “The Brothers Grimm”). He also possesses a fine comic sensibility (“Stuck on You,” “I’m Fucking Matt Damon”). Plainly not shy about discarding his glamorous persona to play Whitacre, Damon mines Mark’s bumbling naivety for laughs. But he’s resolutely adept so that the portrayal doesn’t dissolve into buffoonery despite his character’s healthy dollop of doofus. Damon manages to depict Mark, who is clearly ego boosted by his role as a secret agent, as a well-intentioned goofus without making him derisory, even when the young executive can’t help himself, almost inconceivably, while in crowded boardrooms, from peering unsurreptitiously into lamps fixed with cameras, and fidgeting matter-of-factly with his whirring briefcase recording device.

The seamless direction (Soderbergh also served as the movie’s cinematographer under the pseudonym Peter Andrews) keeps the film skimming as the investigation intensifies. When the offices raids and indictments come down in 1995 – and, ultimately, ADM paid out hundreds of millions in fines and court settlements – Mark remains oblivious, even as his own life becomes more turbid. Almost willfully denying the urgency of his legal and career troubles, Mark boasts and implores in the same breath to his attorney (played by a strong Tony Hale) that “We built the investigation,” the Walter Mitty-like tipster overstating his relationship with the FBI, a team he was never fully a part of and never completely truthful with. Damon is potently effective during the subsequent unraveling.

Soderbergh cleverly accentuates the rueful comic ambience by casting countless comedians in dramatic roles. More than a dozen stand-up comics, writers and improv performers provide strong, decisive portrayals; no punch lines, just impeccable timing. Tom Papa and Rick Overton loom as insufferable ADM honchos, Joel McHale is thoughtfully empathic as Shepard’s partner while Paul F. Tompkins and Patton Oswalt are stolidly stern government investigators. Even the Smothers Brothers are gifted small parts; Tom returns to films after a 20-year absence, Dick makes his first in a decade.

While the Smothers Brothers appear in rare cameos, the assiduous and preeminent Soderbergh has culminated a busy twelve months during which he’s released four distinct films — the two tonally-distinct chapters of “Che” (long but deeply gratifying), “The Girlfriend Experience” (slight but intriguing), and, presently, “The Informant!,” a husky, multilayered and artfully compounded seriocomedy.


July 17th, 2009

In October, Steven Soderbergh presents “The Informant” starring Matt Damon. It’s the third release in the last 8 months from the assiduous auteur (4 if you count “Che” as 2 films).

During the making of “Food, Inc.,” director and co-producer Robert Kenner tells The Georgia Straight, the filmmakers battled an Orwellian chill.

Next month, Glenn McQuaid’s 18th century grave robbing romp, “I Sell the Dead,” will creep into theaters.

Addressing the “spate of recent Hollywood films about Iraq,” Jump Cut’s Justin Vicari analyzes Post-Iraq cinema — veteran heroes in “The Jacket” and “Harsh Times.”

One Film Wonder: Examining adolescent infatuation with boundless charm, intelligence and humor, 1981’s “Gregory’s Girl” is a timeless delight. Dee Hepburn played Dorothy, the titular teen crush. She appeared in a few television programs but just one more feature film, a minor role in “The Bruce” fifteen years later. Reportedly she presently sells hoists in Scotland’s Forth Valley. Director Bill Forsyth followed this film with the magically wonderful “Local Hero”; he hasn’t directed a film since 1999’s “Gregory’s Two Girls” but has recently announced work on a new project.

(”Gregory’s Girl” could serve as a terrific centerpiece for a Football Film Festival; other titles could include “Escape to Victory,” “Once in a Lifetime,” and “Bend it Like Beckham.” With the World Cup less than a year away, a theater should schedule a festival for next spring.)


Che

Guerilla in the Midst

March 31st, 2009

che1
If only every movie had the director delivering his DVD commentary once the house lights come up.

The “Che” roadshow arrived in Portland with Steven Soderbergh in attendance. And after 257 minutes split by just a single quarter-hour intermission, an honest and affable Soderbergh, looking sharp in a black leather jacket, black jeans with Chelsea boots and resembling a Joe Jackson inspiration, offered a glimpse into the filmmaking saga of “Che” and the massive obstacles even an Academy Award winning director with an Oscar winning leading man faces in getting a project greenlighted. At ease, sitting on the edge of the Cinema 21 stage, he was engaging and frank as he recounted a “brutal” shoot which was the most difficult of his career.

The genesis of the project goes as far back as “Traffic.“ Eight years from conception to screen, “Che” was first developed with Soderbergh at the helm, then Terrence Malick, who alighted to the New World after several years work, and finally back to Soderbergh, who shot the two halves consecutively in the summer of 2007. He admitted that once they decided to make the film in the Spanish language, there’d be no money from the U.S. So they relied on European sources. He mused that perhaps they should have made “Che” as a multi-episode miniseries for HBO; the cable network would have provided a bigger budget. Cutting edge digital cameras arrived with just days to spare and still needed tweaking as the production commenced.

Besides the logistical obstacles, it must have been a daunting task deciding how to transfer a biography of Ernesto “Che” Guevara to the screen. Plunked on a pedestal of mythology, the divisive Che was a solider and an academic, a revolutionary with the word and a weapon. But he‘s morphed into the Marxist as marketing tool. He’s a T-shirt icon with a Chris Cornell-like Rock God vibe. Upon the release of “The Motorcycle Diaries,“ Larry Rohter penned a May 2004 New York Times article titled “Che Today? More Easy Rider Than Revolutionary,” which examined Che‘s dichotomous cultural legacy. Jon Lee Anderson, the author of the seminal work, “Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life,” and a chief consultant on Soderbergh‘s film, described Che as “a figure who can constantly be examined and re-examined. To the younger, post-cold-war generation of Latin Americans, Che stands up as the perennial Icarus, a self-immolating figure who represents the romantic tragedy of youth. Their Che is not just a potent figure of protest but the idealistic, questioning kid who exists in every society and every time.” But Mario O’Donnell, a biographer of Guevara as well, noted in the same article that these types of allusions to Greek mythology could reduce Che to a deified stereotype. “The Cubans have excluded everything about Che that is not heroic, including that which is most deliciously human about him. The personal doubts, the sexual escapades, the moments when he and [his traveling motorcycling companion Alberto] Granado are drunk, none of that fits with the immortal warrior they want to project.”

It is this warrior that Soderbergh focuses on. Part One of “Che” is stellar biographical storytelling. It intercuts expeditiously between Guevara‘s first meetings in 1955 with Fidel Castro in Mexico City to the rebel surge across Cuba in the late 1950’s and his defiant appearance in December 1964 before the United Nations. “Che” moves quickly but precisely, steadied by a filmmaker never dawdling but patiently laying out the intertwining elements. It’s methodical and engrossing. The interspersed storylines crafted by screenwriter Peter Buchman make sense and there‘s a keen understanding of Che‘s revolutionary ethos. The story was ably assisted by a quietly clever device at the beginning of the film. Soderbergh opens with a slowly exposed map of Cuba, with regions and cities clearly illuminated in succession as a respectful way to familiarize the audience with the locale and points of interest.

The second part of “Che” centers exclusively on his 1967 quest to foment revolution in Bolivia. Filmed with harsh white sunlight hue and a purposefully muted color palette, Soderbergh said that this part has a purposeful “jagged” feel. The appearance in Part Two of commendable performances from easily recognizable actors — Lou Diamond Phillips, Franka Potente and Matt Damon — doesn’t mean there’s a Hollywood gloss on this portion of the film. It’s a decidedly grittier film than its predecessor. Utilizing the Red One digital camera — a camera that not only afforded Soderbergh more maneuverability but meant that only six shots in the entire film used artificial light — Soderbergh captures a barren landscape of both geographic and political isolation. Where Che was feted as a liberating hero by village after village in Cuba, in Bolivia, he is met by local indifference (and an American presence). His revolution was vaguely organized, with less money and, most crucially, scant indigenous support. So, in Bolivia, where locals seemed hesitant, Che feels like a Marxist imperialist, exporting revolution to folks who aren’t clamoring for it. He comes across as a bit of a policy wonk as well (and this section also highlights that there’s barely an acknowledgement of a personal life in either film).

While imposing, imperious and full blooded, Benicio del Toro doesn’t overwhelm the films in the title role. He is compelling without becoming overpowering. Yet, his Guevara is indefatigable. This unceasing desire mimics the uncompromising arrogance of a demagogue. In his August 1960 speech, “On Revolutionary Medicine,” Che rallied the Cuban Militia with his oft-repeated theme of the Cuban revolution forging a “new man.”

“Then I realized a fundamental thing: For one to be a revolutionary doctor or to be a revolutionary at all, there must first be a revolution. Isolated individual endeavor, for all its purity of ideals, is of no use, and the desire to sacrifice an entire lifetime to the nobles of ideals serves no purpose if one works along, solitarily, in some corner of America, fighting against adverse governments and social conditions which prevent progress. To create a revolution, one must have what there is in Cuba — the mobilization of a whole people, who learn by the use of arms and exercise of militant unity to understand the value of arms and the value of unity.”

He underscores this belief in the subjugation of the individual impulse with a veiled sense that his means to a revolutionary end are something more menacing than a recommendation — indeed, a threat to civil liberties.

“Individualism, in the form of the individual action of a person alone in a social milieu, must disappear in Cuba. In the future individualism ought to be the efficient utilization of the whole individual for the absolute benefit of a collective. It is not enough that this idea is understood today, that you all comprehend the things I am saying and are ready to think a little about the present and the past and what the future out to be. In order to change a way of thinking, it is necessary to undergo profound internal changes and to witness profound external changes, especially in the performance of our duties and obligations to society.”

The Che of this speech is the Che of this epic film; unflinching, charismatic, and persuasive but peremptory; unfailingly dressed in fatigues, draped in ambivalent heroism. Soderbergh described the making of the films as “kind of like a slow motion car accident.” In Che, he’s got one hell of a back seat driver