By Dave McCoy
MSN Movies Lead Editor

Last year at the Toronto Film Festival, fellow critic Jim Emerson (editor of RogerEbert.com, author of Scanners blog and MSN Movies contributor) showed me a photo of a T-shirt, was was one of the funniest I've seen. On it was the recognizable close-up of Argentinean revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Below his face were the words "I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS IS!!!"

The joke, of course, stems from the oversaturation of Che's iconic image, turning the Marxist into a counterculture icon and cheap symbol of individuality, bro. Walk around a college town and you'll see Che's bereted head on the chests of freshman who just took their first poli-sci class, post-hippies waving it like a freak flag, or guilty frat boys trying to forget they just joined the "establishment" by paying for four years of friendship. (Hey, don't get me wrong; it's part of youth. I opted for a Malcolm X T-shirt and a "Free Nelson Mandela" bumper sticker on my Honda Prelude ... that my dad bought for me.) There is truth to the T-shirt, though. People know the image, but beyond "Viva la revolución" and his power-to-the-people message, what do they know of the man? When walking into Steven Soderbergh's 4-hour, 28-minute, two-part movie, titled simply "Che," I hoped the director would illuminate the ignorant and offer a balanced look at a complex, contradictory, controversial figure in 20th-century history. Hell, after 4 hours and 28 minutes, we had better be enlightened.

Well, let's just say that after this film, if anyone sees it, more Che T-shirts will fly off the shelves because apparently the revolutionist is a saint! (Between Mike Tyson and Angelina Jolie in the "Changeling," there's a lot of talk of saints at Cannes.)

Don't get me wrong: Soderbergh's opus is a staggeringly impressive piece of work. It's pure storytelling, because the director has dropped all his self-reflexive tricks. I can't fathom how he made this thing. One of its greatest achievements, however, is also one of its biggest flaws. I don't think I've seen something this large in scope and length be so minutely, acutely focused. Despite covering 10 to 15 years, it's not sprawling. In fact, the two halves are reverse images of each other, or two sides of the same peso. Soderbergh is not interested in a thorough character study of Che; he views him as an ideology and cause that's mobilized.

Outside of a few flashbacks and flash-forwards, Part 1 is a meticulous study of the Cuban Revolution, from Fidel Castro's initial idea to take out dictator Fulgencio Batista to the final drive into Havana, from a ragtag group of boys landing in Cuba without enough weapons, to the military machine that took down Santa Clara (an exhilarating 40-minute or so battle that will surely be studied in film schools). It's raucous and celebratory, a passionate look at camaraderie during battle and ultimately victory. At the center is Che (Benicio Del Toro, in easily the greatest performance of his career; you don't see the actor ... he just becomes Che), the doctor-turned-rebel, the man who wrote the book on guerrilla warfare, a charismatic leader, fierce idealist, humanist, principled, motivated, educated ... well, as presented here, perfect (in battle, the dude had a broken arm and still hits the streets firing a machine gun like Tony Montana in "Scarface"; he's a god). Part 1 is revolution and ideology gloriously realized.

Part 2 is the flipside of the peso. Post-Cuba, Che heads to Bolivia, incognito, to start another proletariat revolution. However, this time, things don't work out so well. Peasants don't trust the rebels, the United States refuses to let another Cuba happen and intervenes and ... well, it ain't pretty. However, it is scrupulous and visually stunning -- the full year in the jungle is portrayed in more than two hours; I think Soderbergh watched Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" too many times. Despite the failure, at the center is Che, a charismatic leader, fierce idealist, humanist, principled, motivated, educated, who as presented here -- in the middle of a gigantic, miscalculated, bloody debacle -- is still perfect.

No doubt Che was all those things -- you don't lead a successful revolution without charisma. But with his sympathetic, heroic approach, Soderbergh has turned a blind eye to other facts. In Part 1, Soderbergh often cuts to Che's 1964 visit to the United Nations (he frames the revolution with an interview between Che and an English journalist), where crowds yell "Murderer!" at him. In Part 2, a Cuban-turned-Bolivian soldier informs Comandante that he murdered his relative. Outside of that, Soderbergh neglects to address Che's famously brutal, ruthless nature. Numerous accounts reveal Che to be a mass murderer, sending from 500 to 2,000 men to their deaths postrevolution. Meanwhile, his tough disciplinary methods during the revolution had him personally murdering many men. None of that is included here; Che's too busy reading and spouting enough wise sayings to bumper-sticker a Volkswagen bus. The closest we get is when Che has two defectors executed ... not because they defected from the platoon but because they stole from peasants and raped a teenage villager. I would never have expected Soderbergh to be an apologist or a director who avoids complexity, but I can't call it any other way. That Soderbergh could so painstakingly depict the different sides of two military campaigns but be so one-sided in his presentation of his protagonist stifles my mind.

I have no idea whether this is the finished film. Word was it'd be two films, "The Argentine" and "Guerrilla." What we saw last night was "Che" in two parts with an intermission ... and without any credits. The print still must have been wet. Also, while exiting the screening, I ran into critic Glenn Kenny, who timed the film at 4 hours and 10 minutes, though the official running time is 4 hours and 28 minutes. So this film either has 18 minutes of credits or something else is missing. Perhaps this is a dry (wet) run and Soderbergh will go back to trim or shape it. There is no official release date, so he can do what he wants and take his time if necessary. Regardless, no editing will shift the film's partisan, deifying approach, a decision that perhaps prevents it from achieving greatness.

Speaking of that intermission ... in perhaps the cleverest bit of promotion, journalists entered the lobby to find brown paper bags with "Che" written on them. Inside: a bottle of water; half a white-bread, extremely minimal sandwich; and a small piece of chocolate. Socialism has its benefits.

A demain ...

Next: Coverage of the awards ceremonies. Plus, a wrap-up of new films by Charlie Kaufman, Atom Egoyan and more.

Dave McCoy is lead editor for MSN Movies. He's filing daily dispatches from Cannes through May 25.

Will you see "Che"? Write us at heymsn@microsoft.com

Sound off: Comment on this story