Check these film blogs out

A couple of new film blogs I'm following from two of my mates. Fucking brilliant both, although in very different ways - one is a street-smart maaa'frucker who'll rob your shit just as quickly as he'll view Milk and the second is acid wit on smack with a dash of 'Hoooo-pla' thrown in.

Both sick, both arseholes in their own way. Check 'em out.

Mastaccato: Masterchef judges speak in syllables

I can't for the life of me work out why John Torode and Gregg Wallace talk-in-sta-cca-to. Watch, listen and wonder.

Guess who found out there is life on Mars...that's right, The Sun

Fresh out of Madeline McCann material, The Sun have gone and shocked the world - they've done some proper investigative journalism and revealed methane gas found in Mars is likely to contain elements which suggest there is, just like David Bowie originally theorised, Life on Mars.

City Uni media guru Roy Greenslade highlights an interesting news embargo furore which was borne out of the story: Apparently, most news agencies don't realise you can still find things out for yourself.

Whoa

Imagine having a 100-trillion dollar bill. Zimbabwe now has one. It wouldn't even stretch to a pair of trainers in the UK. Whoa.

The greatest job in the world?

You know how loads of people want to tell you they have "the best job in the world?" even though they work in a bin? Well, whoever get this job babysitting Queensland's Hamilton Island may actually have reached the mecca of the working world.

Hamilton Island: Landlord wanted

I've been to Hamilton Island and that it is a sweeeeet job.

Reports of the weekend: Dead pirates, Primark's crap wages exposed and Bush's legacy

Here's a selection of the best reporting over the weekend, including: problems for Primark after illegal immigrant wage scndal exposed by the Guardian; Somali pirate very rich but dead, and Rupert Cornwall on Bush's legless legacy.

Also, read The Times' expose on web-search giant Google's size 15 carbon footprint and an old interview with president-elect Obama uneathered by French daily Le Monde. No coverage of the Gaza tragedy - too depressing, just hope it ends soon.

Che: Part One - Biopic or not?

When is a biopic not quite a biopic? When it doesn’t explain the subject’s motivations? When it misses large chunks of the subject’s life? When it remains so faithful to account that it largely rejects context?

All of these charges apply to Che: Part One. It is scarily close in narrative to Cuban hero Guevara’s Reminisces of the Cuban Revolutionary War – each shot is an almost exact remake of Guevara’s memories, each set of images another page of Guevera's memories.

And this is where the controversy has arisen. Is a film which draws entirely on a personal account a biopic or an autobiopic? Critics are divided, as I reported at the end of last year. Some believe it isn’t even a biography; instead its focus on the conflict as the narrative has led many to call it a war film, or a military biopic if you want. But isn’t this what Che would have wanted in a film about his life? His goal was never personal glory; most who met him said he lacked ego in the sense the Western world understand it. But, on the other hand, should a biopic take into account the subject's wants?

I don’t know quite what to think about aesthetics, narratives and whether it goes deep enough. It is true that Che’s life before the revolution is completely glossed over; the earliest we see him is during his first encounter with Fidel Castro in Mexico City, where plans for revolution are presented to Guevara. It is also true we never see his wife, children, family or home country; His personal life is actually limited to a single reference. We aren’t even exposed to Guevara’s motivations – he is simply a pig-headed anti-imperialist revolutionary.

Yet despite the lack of coherent context, it somehow works – like Soderberg has understood Guevara’s message and has given it fair space to breathe in, warts and all.

However, this isn’t to say the film is homage – far from it. The revolutionary soldier/military pioneer is just that – at times ruthless, cold-hearted and passionate to the point of crazed anger but that seems to be the point, that Guevara was interested in the war, the struggle, not his own role within the revolution. Aided by a stunning performance from Benicio Del Toro, Che: Part One is an insightful Western mainstream account of the Cuban revolution, yet not in the way most expected.

I suspect those have major problems with the film will have them on ideological levels, on both the political and filmic fronts. Miami Cubans complained vigorously the film is too far on the side of the Cuban revolutionary perspective, and this is incorrect. What is important to understand is the context of how Soderberg has treated the film: less interested in politics or motivation, he wants to reveal the revolutionary life – what it means, what it involves, how the biggest mass revolution of the twentieth century happened. Some film buffs may alude the lack of depth, and in a sense this is justified, but clearly they have rejected the style of the film. This is less about a person and more about how a person can be driven to achieve goals, and become a living (soon-to-dead) icon.

As a unique piece of filmmaking Che: Part One is a major success. Ruthless, uncompromising and brilliantly shot with wonderful central performances, Soderberg has produced a really strong film here (minus the casting of Castro – it's wrong, wrong, wrong; and the fact Guevara’s hat doesn't come off once during the whole film). Not the film of the year – I have a feeling The Wrestler might take that accolade) but a strong effort and one which will divide opinion, both the in film and political communities, for years.

Part Two follows next month.