Giving the life story of Che Guevara epic treatment, Steven Soderbergh has made a two part film that not only spans four hour and 17-minutes, but is a glowing veneration of Guevara.

Soderbergh depicts Che as hero and the communist guerrilla, a version of the Stations of the Cross, as we see Guevara enduring various hardships, at various stages of his life. Much like French filmmaker Jacques Rivette's two-part epic 'Joan the Maid', on the life of Joan of Arc. While, the attitude of reverence wasn't misplaced in 'Joan the Maid, it occasionally borders on the absurd, as far as 'Che' is concerned.

Undoubtedly, Guevara, both man and legend, impressed us with his bravery and brilliance, his dedication to his cause, a veritable rock star among revolutionaries. Just as handsome and with a charismatic personality, as Benicio del Toro, who plays Che, yet, what was his legacy? He led the Cuban revolution that ushered in Fidel Castro, and much to his credit, he toppled the corrupt regime and helped the poor to be not quite as poor. In place of corruption, a totalitarian dictatorship ensured that 50-years after liberation, Cuba has held no free elections.

Guevara went to Bolivia , bringing the joys of totalitarian communism to that country. Soderbergh shows that as a good thing, as though US will forget the Monroe Doctrine and learn to tolerate another Soviet satellite in Latin America . If, Soderbergh had tried to show Guevara's actions as heroically useful, instead of blindly utopian and destructive, 'Che' just might have proved provocatively, fascinating polemic. Rather, Soderbergh's refusal to plunge into the realm of ideas, makes the film a series of noble tableaux, which as you watch it, seems rather like sitting through a slow, four-hour worship service, held in the forest.

Part 1 (129 minutes) begins in Mexico , where Guevara encountered Castro for the first time. The film then quickly shifts to Cuba , where for the next two hours plus, Guevara and his men skirmish with government troops, gaining victory over American-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. In contrast, there are other scenes shot in black and white that show Guevara's reception in New York in 1965, where he attends parties, gives interviews, eventually addresses the United Nations.

Part 2 (128 minutes) turns out to be a mirror image of Part 1, only this time we shift to Bolivia , where the government troops skirmish with the guerrillas. While, in the first half, Guevara is the winner, in the second part, things begin to get worse for him, as skirmishing in the forests is interspersed with scenes of Soderbergh's villains (the government and the CIA) plotting to destroy Guevara. Marginally more interesting than Part 1, Part 2 is a bit much, when we see an ill and tired Guevara, sagging in his saddle, just like Charlton Heston towards the end of 'El Cid'.

'Che' is interminably long and fails on artistic grounds, a pro-Castro, anti-CIA film that also refutes Guevara's politics, which is made by a mainstream American director. If, an anti-Fidel, pro-American film was shown in Cuba , what would the reaction be? My point, exactly!