Was this movie ever called "Medellin" and did it star Vincent Chase?

If you can't tell your story in 2.5 hrs or less you're doing it wrong.

Alas, any movie is only a slice of time, a mere drop of the whole. In the case of Che, this movie shows one aspect of his persona and adds only glimmers, only a bit more than his iconic picture with beret or his mug on vodka bottles.

A full examination of this man or of the Cuban revolution (or even of Marx) always leads one back to one singular point: the power of runaway egos and blind ambition.

Marx: a philosopher? That teutonic scallywag had no idea how to end his book...so he had the state whither away. I know what he meant though, just look at the "shit" Castro's made out of Cuba.

Che: Obsessed with moral/political incentives. The new man always sacrificing for the State. Yet, he and most of those around him were on powerkicks and living high like Marie Antoinete.

Castro: a megalomaniac obsessed with controlling everything, including the weather and the vegetation. He rode a revolutionary crest that started without him, then eliminated all others who might challenge his rule. Cuba today has been pounded into the stone age by his singular ego. The novel "Up Dog Street" depicts quite well the tragedy of a people enslaved by ubrideld egos the likes of Che, Castro and Marx.

It's not entirely correct to say that the films were shot on "digital video" or a "HD video camera". The Red One is a digital cinema camera, with more than four times the resolution of high-def, and it uses the same lenses as 35mm film cameras do.

Having worked with it, I'm convinced that it and its successors will bring about a revolution, and to and extent it already is.

But it's not useful to be surprised that it "looks like a big-budget movie". Digital doesn't have to mean that it looks like DV or what people associate with "video", as it turns out, "looking like film" doesn't have too much to do with film, it has more to do with the framerate and shutter characteristics, the quality of the optics, and the depth of field you get from a large sensor area.

While cameras like the Red One are technically "video", people try to avoid the term exactly because of the negative associations, and that's why we invent terms like "digital cinema", because people are snobs, and "video" isn't seen as being good enough.

great review in the ny times, comparing the movie's focus on che's tactics to soderbergh's own obvious obsession with technical process. again, haven't seen it, but that rings true to me. in 'out of sight,' which i think is still his best movie, the technical brilliance matches the cool (not chilly) professionalism of the characters.

i haven't seen 'che,' but it sounds like soderbergh's taking the 'lawrence of arabia' approach -- throw up a bunch of ambiguous impressive spectacle on the screen, but leave us without much on the charismatic figure at its core. but who knows -- 'lawrence of arabia' is still a great movie, with a great lead performance.

but i just wonder if it's really that brave to focus on the military campaigns and studiously avoid the politics, the executions, etc. seems a little like making a movie about george w. but focusing entirely on his domestic life with wife and kids. it may be accurate, but it's not what most of us would find important (devastating) about the man, and it would feel a little like cowardice.