Clearly this biography is pro-Castro.But whether one is pro- or anti-Castro, one needs to see Castro's Cuba in comparison to Mexico and the rest of Latin America.The comparison with Mexico is particularly fascinating, given that Mexico is on the southern border of the U.S.To the North, of course, there is Canada. A British Commonwealth. With Canada, the U.S. shares a heritage of sorts. With Mexico, not so much.Still, since the days of Sam Houston, the U.S. has had a huge impact on Mexico. And any fair analysis would only conclude that the impact has been largely negative. Such that today Mexico is in turmoil over drugs headed to the U.S.In the meantime, Castro's Cuba, while not exactly flourishing, is in much better shape than Mexico, even despite being embargoed by the largest economic power the world has ever known. Imagine if the U.S. at least took the shackles off Cuba and allowed Americans to visit.Bottom line: Castro's Cuba has completely out-performed Mexico and most of the rest of Latin America - the recent emergence of Brazil being the exception. (NOTE: The final verdict on Brazil, however, may be determined by the fate of the Amazon region.)

The introduction of this film is instructive, for it calls Castro a socialist, not a Communist, a portent of the revisionist white washing and watering down of the truth that is to come. On the other hand, the main problems with this look at Castro are not "sins of commission" (i.e., falsehoods) but "sins of omission"--i.e., what it overlooks and neglects to mention. Perhaps the creators of this film could justify this bias by saying that the tale of Castro as violent thug, hypocrite, etc., has already been told over and over many times, whereas this film aims to focus on the UNtold story. But this justification is mistaken in two ways. (1) First, outside the Cuban exile community in the US, few Americans have heard the “oft told” story of the many crimes of Castro’s dictatorship (it's not just that Castro suppressed all manner of freedoms at home, but he worked to export Soviet-style oppression abroad--yes, even in Africa). (2) Even if the dark side of Castro had been oft told and were already well known, I don't think overlooking or minimizing the oppression and tyranny of a dictator is ever justified--alas, this film is so biased that it is quite willing to call Batista a “dictator” but is loathe to call Castro a “dictator.”

The death of Grenadas' leader gave the US an excuse to invade?? During the US invasion some Cuban " construction workers" were caught in the middle and killed??? Really? construction workers?

The bias towards Castro in this film is over the top propaganda.