Both films suffer from not providing enough background on the political and social situations in the countries (Cuba and Bolivia) at the time, and thus provides less reason to take an interest in the (attempts at) revolutions Che is taking part in.

That said, the first one was clearly the better film.

Better than part 1.

In my opinion, both are sleep-inducing documentaries of people walking through forests. At least in Part 1 this was alternated with speeches and interviews, so my preference goes out to that one. I would like to know how the common Cuban and Bolivian man feels about the film(s); how do they look at it? Does the pace and imagery speak to them differently?

I can understand that the film makers intended to show a realistic picture, not needlessly spicing it up. But that doesn't mean it should be dispassionate. I felt completely dissociated from everyone and everything. Even the moments where tension would be unavoidable were emotionally flat. And that comatose state rambles on for four long hours. My walk through marshlands this afternoon was far more enthralling.

I should add several positive remarks though. Del Toro plays a VERY believable Che and that deserves praise. The cinematography is flawless. And seeing things in their right context will help anyone obtain a more vivid picture of El Comandante's life/execution/surroundings, although that is of course the minimal requirement for a biographical film.