Battle in Heaven (2005) User Reviews

This Is An Art Film

[sandro-santoli · 5/10 · 29 January 2012]

This is an art film, or at least what the average movie goer will view as an art film. By that, I mean you're going to have to dig really deep to find a plot that you can follow. The scenes are too obviously artistic...a tear drop, a blank stare, holding of hands.

The movie is about a man who is struggling with the guilt of having kidnapped a child who died. I'm not worried about giving away any spoilers because I'm not sure there are any to give away. The movie is a sequence of scenes that make you wonder why they are in the film, and frustratingly so because you really never find out.

American audiences especially will be shocked by the sex scenes. I'm not saying that's good or bad. We just rarely see a penis in a movie, aside from porn, let alone an erect one, let alone someone interacting with one.

The reason I gave this move a 5 is based entirely on its style. The characters often stare at each other with blank faces but they are consistently unemotional. The characters look like real people plucked right off a Mexico City street. The sounds in the film are interesting and graphic, sometimes noisy. But it works to keep you in the film. The filming in Mexico City creates an interesting backdrop. You're just dying for a story to be drawn from it but it never emerges, at least not a good one.

Very affecting, bitter sweet movie

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 31 August 2007]

For two thirds of this film I was spellbound and then it suddenly span away from me. Listening to the director speaking afterwards, I think I know what went wrong and I shall have to view again some time to find out. It is all very watchable but slightly confusing towards the end, which is a shame and may be my fault, that of the director or even of Mexico itself. Whilst I have never been to the country it did seem that part of the lifeblood of this movie was the tangled city of contradictions itself. Even though not perfect in my eyes there was enough to show that this is a director of keen and original talent who will produce much more. His liking to work with non actors is welcome and his treatment of actual graphic sex is stunning. Very affecting, bitter sweet movie.

Deliberately paced, stylized, abundantly empty.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 8 March 2007]

I guess I'm going to have to give Reygadas A for effort. What we see on screen certainly LOOKS good. The photography is splendid and the human or humanoid figures are memorable in one way or another. It sounds good too. There's no noticeable score but the situational music ranges from rap through military marches to Bach, and the otherwise silent background sometimes is filled with clicking heels, peeps, and ticks.

That's about it for me. The residual impression is a failed attempt at an artistic masterpiece. In the opening scene, before the credits, we see the inexpressive face of an ordinary middle-aged man. The camera, always slowly and deliberately, moves down his overblown torso and we see the back of some blond woman's head covering his groin, her hair sprouting up in ungainly spears and tangles. At a glacial pace the camera sidles sideways and we see (explicitly) that she is fellating the guy, her movements about as unsprightly as the camera's, and her eyes are closed. The camera moves verrrry slooowly in until we see only her closed lids. They pop open, her irises stare wildly at us, and a tear rolls out of one of them and down her cheek.

That's not too bad, but it's an example of the director's technique at just about its peak. A few other scenes are equally shocking but for the most part watching this is like rolling a giant stone up a hill.

There are one or two underlying plots in all this artistry. One has to do with a general's daughter, Ana, working for kicks in a cathouse. Several people have argued that this is the only way male directors can think about women with sexual appetites, which strikes me as a pretty cheap interpretation. Anyway, Marco, the fat guy we see in the opening scene is her chauffeur and for some reason agrees to get it on with him. They make love joylessly. "Marco, calm down," she tells him as he lies there passively, staring at the ceiling. Marco also makes love to his wife, a human butterball, which is like making love to one of the monumental Mayan pyramids at Chitchen Itza. It's easy to make fun of people who are visually imperfect but you have to give these actors credit for being willing to expose their flawed bodies on screen like this. (I can only make these statements because my own physical manifestation is without blemish.) Not to say that the young Ana's figure is unusual. She looks pretty good. But all the sex is made to look about as much fun as riding an exercise bicycle. If it were no more alluring a sport than as presented here the human race would have died out thousands of years ago.

Well, anyway, it fits the overall gloom of the other story, the one about the child that Marco and his wife kidnapped, the child who died while a captive. The climactic scenes bring the problem of guilt and penance to a head but we don't really get to know much about it until half-way through the film, and then only through minimalist conversation.

You know, if you were to play a DVD or a tape of this movie and stop it somewhere at random, you'd probably get an image of two people gazing silently at one another. Failing that, you can expect a tableau of a dozen or so people standing together motionlessly as if they were dolls placed there by a child, staring silently at the camera. There is one spectacular shot in which Ana and Marcos are getting it on and the camera moves verrry slooowly out onto the balcony of the room and then takes us on a slooow tour of the Mexico City neighborhood, looking no better and no worse than any other big-city neighborhood, before completing its 360 degree travelogue and returning to the now-exhausted couple on the bed. It reminded me of the spectacular shot towards the end of Michelangelo Antonioni's "The Passenger." While Jack Nicholson is getting murdered quietly in his room, the camera passes through the bars of the window and takes us on a scenic tour of the street outside before pulling back through the bars and showing us Nicholson's corpse. I got the point of Antonioni's camera movement. The bars in the window were removable so the camera could get outside and replaceable so it could get back in -- a self-conscious display of technique. This whole movie reminds me of that shot.

Still, the visuals are beautiful, the film does have its moments, and a lot of effort clearly went into the production. So they still use storyboards? Because if they do, this was thoroughly storyboarded. If you're in a contemplative and patient mood, and if you don't mind quite a lot of experimental technique, you should find this film an interesting one.

a film which sets new norms for slow reaction shots

[andrew-race · 3 November 2005]

Having been led to believe by a listings magazine that this film had'outstanding naturalistic sound design', I should have realised i might be disappointed. I was expecting a slice of Mexican life, character development, perhaps a plot and I must admit a certain erotic content. The result was stunningly boring in every respect. Nothing is explained, we never learn why the event at the start of the film has taken place, the characters are almost totally impassive, deeply unappealing and the sexual encounters, apart from one, have no erotic appeal and indeed very little logic to them. Over the top music, a few symbols here and there, rolling up the flag, a little religion and superstition and such amusing touches as a leitmotiv of incontinence for no apparent reason, this truly was 90 minutes where paint drying would have seemed vastly more exciting. Do not see this film.

The Burden laid upon a Latin American Married Man's Psyche because of his actions...

[JanioEdwards · 7/10 · 30 January 2006]

At first I was engrossed by the first minutes of the film. But having analysed the narrative structure and I came to the conclusion that in fact the beginning of the film is the vital part of the film which makes up the middle and the end of the film. There is a psychoanalytical perspective to take into consideration. One has to take into consideration the Latin American culture and the role of the man, to understand the pressures that revolve around the main character's psyche. The burden of his actions, both in having kidnapped a child and the consequences of his infidelity. This film at first seemed boring and slow, but once reflected upon can be added a few extra points. Aesthetics and psychological analysis within the narrative are strong points to look into...but didn't love it...But please bare in mind this is not a Porn film as supposedly wished in the previous critique.

Dull Exploitation

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 17 June 2018]

Mediocre unknown filmmakers like to use aspirant actresses in cheap sex scenes to get easy promotion of their "art films". "Batalla en el cielo", a.k.a. "Battle in Heaven", is no different and begins and ends with fellation scenes performed by the hot and sexy Anapola Mushkadiz. The story is a complete mess, there is no explanation for capital points (for example, why Marco and his wife kidnapped the child of a friend?) and the screenplay uses explicit blow jobs, grotesque sex scenes with ugly and fat couple, nudity and even a man pissing his pants to be on the spot. Last but not the least, the pace is too slow and vague in this boring and dull film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Batalha no Céu" ("Battle in Heaven")

An art-house classic

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 20 February 2017]

There is a semblance of a plot in Carlos Reygadas' "Battle in Heaven" and it may even be an interesting one but it's not the plot that interests Reygadas. He opens (and closes) his film with shots of oral sex and there is a fair bit of explicit sex in the film, mostly between the overweight Marcos and his bosses' attractive daughter, who seems to be some kind of sex worker or between Marcos and his middle-aged and overweight wife. Using people who are not conventionally 'attractive' in 'real' sex scenes seems to be Reygadas' way of saying this is 'real' but, of course, we know it's not; it's a fiction about a couple who kidnap a baby who then dies. The husband, Marcos, then seems to be consumed with guilt, confesses what he's done, commits a murder and then goes on a kind of pilgrimage to purge himself of his sin.

Most film-makers might have concentrated on the kidnapping, cut back on the sex and thrown the pilgrimage in as an afterthought but Reygadas isn't most film-makers. One of Mexico's foremost directors Reygadas takes the germ of an idea and holds it at arms length, often using non-professional actors, as he does here; even the murder feels unreal and, to be honest, a bit pointless, (were it not for this killing we could be watching a documentary). It's superbly shot though the pacing, (and, I'm sure, the sex) won't be to everyone's taste. It is, however, now regarded as something of an art-house classic.

It was awful

[brmr_1980 · 1/10 · 9 November 2005]

This movie is a shameful example of the Mexican industry. We have so many great movies, I can't understand how this film has managed to be shown in the theaters at an international level. the beginning was well made, it caught my attention the unusual message it portrayed, but it went downhill from there. The story was terribly narrated, the sex was awful, it just failed to transmit the message I guess it has: how decadent life is. I know there are ways to show sex scenes in an artistic way, it was great to show normal looking people in their intimacy, but this was just horrible. It seemed as if the director thought: OK, here is an open scene of some roofs, why don't we add some sex here? Oh look! a bedroom, let's have the two fat actors have sex here! OK, the movie is ending, but we have extra film, I know, let's have her give him a blow-job in heaven and declare their mutual love after he stabbed her to death. The acting was so obviously forced that it is ridiculous. The director tried to show how common people are in Mexico, but this is just bad. Even the accent the actors used in their speech sounded false. The camera angles, the supposedly artistic scenes were so repetitive and badly done. All the movie seemed to have been done forcibly. It was terrible, but I guess it got a decent rating here because of the free sex and the shots of a man's erection and a girl's vagina.

Refreshing (and realistic) proposal for Mexican directors

[kms102 · 8/10 · 10 October 2005]

As a Mexican, it is very exciting for me to find new proposals for Mexican modern films.

Unfortunately, must of the current Mexican movies are taking the same Hollywood recipe: beautiful actors, violence, soundtracks of well known Latin groups... Batalla en el Cielo does not follow this. The director, Carlos Reygadas, is a person that really wants to show what he has in mind, and does not care about considering distracting elements for having a greater impact in the audience.

I am against the use of sex for attracting audience to a film. However, I really think that some (not all) of the sex scenes of this movie were really part of the story. Also, showing sex as it is (not always as idealistic and esthetic as Hollywood has taught us) is an interesting proposal!

I consider that one of the main achievements of this movies is to show many cultural traits of my country:

-The view of the Catholic religion as a resource to erase the mistakes one has made: "you can do whatever you want, don't worry about the effects because God will always help you"

-The notorious gap between rich and poor people: when Ana refers to Jaime's servant as "la gata" in such a despective -but common- way.

-The double morale managed by Mexican: how can a prostitute, as Ana, can be a moral leader over Marcos's acts?

-The informal commerce (Marcos and his wife sold merchandise in the subway).

-The love for soccer (what can I say about that, if I love it?)

-Cheating on your partner

-The lifestyle in Mexico City, with its traffic jams, way people behave in the subway, neurotic people, kidnaps.

All the issues above are part of the Mexican life.

Personally, I consider the following opportunity areas:

-Not all the music that was used was OK. Sometimes it was too "belic" for me , but at least it is according to the scenes and most of it does not follow the marketing intentions to make you buy a soundtrack

-The audio quality should have been improved (it was not easy to understand, even for people used to the way people from Mexico City speak!)

-Some (very few!) parts were too slow... but considering Reygadas's style, I might think that it is part of his professional charm.

I like to see a different proposal. I would recommend this film to people that, at the time that they leave the theater, really want to think about human nature, rather than thinking if it was an erotic or violent film.

I hope my comment has been useful...

Battle in my mind whether I like it or not.

[fluff-bomb · 6/10 · 10 February 2015]

Battle in Heaven is a difficult one to rate, and describe. It's like Marmite, you either love it or hate it. Or, it just confuses the hell out of you. Unfortunately I was subjected to the latter.

Marcos, his wife and his son are a working class family who kidnap a baby for ransom money as they struggle to survive on an income derived from selling cake in a subway station and Marcos' long term security job for the local General and his daughter, Ana.

There are some strange plot holes: You never find out precisely why the couple stole the baby, or why it died. Why does Ana cry when giving Marcos fellatio? How/why does Marcos spontaneously die at the altar after the pilgrimage? Why does Marcos leave the flat, wet himself, then return to stab Ana?

However the film does redeem itself by some use of artistic cinematography. But it's hard to compliment much else for this film. The use of sex scenes help it achieve the 'art' feel but do not help to move forward the plot.

The acting is amateur at best, poor use of expression makes it feel like one is watching robots perform.

In conclusion it can be said that although this film captures the 'realism' of Mexico, it is supported by shoddy acting and a poorly written script which restricts plot development. I feel like this film is unfortunately a lot of wasted potential.

6/10

Battle to stay awake

[PaulLondon · 4/10 · 25 May 2006]

As the director probably hoped, the opening and closing blow job scenes gained this film a great deal of notoriety and attention that far exceeded the publicity such a turgid, self-consciously 'arty' film would normally receive. This unrelentingly ugly and frequently agonisingly boring film is about a couple of days in the life of a man who shags his bosses daughter and who, with his wife, has kidnapped a child (for no explained reason). At times this has the artless artiness of such trash auteurs as Doris Wishman, but give me Doris' 'Deadly Weapons' over this tedious trash any day! Pretentious and dull this is a pastiche of art house world cinema and does not warrant your time

Fantastic Film..

[David-M · 9/10 · 17 November 2005]

This not an easy picture. It requires Patience and commitment. It's a poetic movie about the urban heaven. About real people. About love and about madness. Reygadas is truly an author. He turns a conventional history in to a great ride through emotions, feelings and in to the overwhelming city of Mexico. Either you love it or hate it, no one comes out of the theater without a comment or a reaction. The movie has the power to move you in a positive or in a negative way. And i guess that something to be thankful about. Mexican films, in recent years, are mostly easy going urban comedies. This totally different. A prove that we can make different stories that reflect the sometimes surreal life of our country. This is one of them. With no professional actors, the movie feels honest and. The cast it's in a very natural level. The Sex scenes are not as important as they seem. Sex is finally a part o who we are, and we are use to see great bodies making love on the screen. It's not easy to see real people doing it, because we may see ourselves in them. And when someone throws your reality at your face, you can hate it. But Batalla En el Cielo does that and even more: Takes that reality to another lever and turns it in to poetry. And that it's just fantastic.

I'm still not sure whether I enjoyed this film or not...

[lavalady · 7/10 · 20 April 2007]

-likely there are no real spoilers here, but I do hate all spoilers, so erred on the side of caution.-

I'm not sure if I am happy or sad that this film was so beautifully shot - had it not been, I would have stopped watching it pretty quickly.

I found many elements of the Marcos and Ana plot really annoying (the conceits and the situations both). Although I appreciate a beautiful body, the contrast between the actors felt more exploitative than honest. A "truer" actress playing Ana (that is, not quite so fetching and physically perfect) would have made it less annoying. As for the sex, it was not as awful as some made it out to be - or perhaps reading the comments before watching made me expect much worse (that and I'm not fat phobic). Some scenes struck me as just right and way over done at the same time (the onanistic football watching scene is a perfect example, too much but there was something about it that I just loved).

The comments here by Spanish speakers that the acting was just atrocious made me realize how much can be forgiven when you don't speak the language of the film, but even I cringed at some of the performances. The scene in the countryside between Marcos and his wife for example. Ouch.

During one scene we watch Marcos walking, walking, walking through the countryside, with that dead look on his face. It would have been excruciatingly dull to watch but the landscape was breathtaking. Like I said in the beginning, the photography saved this film for me. Mexico City looks amazing in this film - I feel as though I have really *seen* the city in a way I never have previously. And the sound (so heavy on the ambient) was enjoyable as well.

On a philosophical note, I tire of the notion that women's bodies are for wide consumption, and of seeing violence against women as portrayed in many films (as routine), but even with those predispositions, I could enjoy the film - well, aspects of it. The last 20 minutes or so... meh.

But it was a beautiful film, for all of the flaws I saw in it. So, there you go.

A little too much of nothing

[raoul-bos · 4/10 · 11 February 2006]

Battle in Heaven stops being interesting to watch every time the director decided to put in a scene or shot that doesn't add up to the hard-to-be-found storyline.

The tragic life and the somewhat perverse feelings of belonging that Marco has is clear from the beginning of the film. And in the first few scenes this state of being is depicted very clear and immersing.

Yet as soon as the film starts developing towards the point that Marco's unclear conscious starts to conflict, and his desire for Ana get's more troublesome. The movie loses track of a storyline and every time you think you grasp what is going on, the director put's in another shot that absolutely doesn't make sense and raises questions. (Why o why did they put in the close up of Ana's vagina, it was pretty though).

The problem of this movie is not that it lacks constituents for a storyline, but that it has to many undetermined parts that explain the "why?" especially in relation to Marcos. Too much is left to the viewers interpretation resulting in me not really knowing what was going on.

"Battle in Heaven" describes no battles

[Gordon-11 · 23 March 2008]

This film is about a man and wife, who kidnapped a friend's baby for ransom. However, the baby died, and they have to live with the consequences.

The plot outline describes a promising start of an emotional drama. It could have been a captivating story if it was elaborated well. However, the plot ends there. The filmmakers ran out of ideas of what to do, and hence film a car driving around the city for minutes, or film the urban apartment blocks from a rooftop. Or throw in some sex scenes to keep viewers interested.

There is almost no portrayal of Ana and Marco's states of mind after the kidnapping goes wrong. There is no description of the victim's family's grief. Instead, the film wanders around aimlessly and pointlessly. It fails to engage, captivate or evoke any emotions. "Battle in Heaven" describes no battles. It lacks any redeeming value, and I strongly suggest staying away from it.

Tips to understand Battles in the Sky.

[planetdiego · 6/10 · 12 October 2005]

I understand a couple of not so obvious things after seeing this movie. First of all I now know why Reygadas called his last movie Japan. (which is probably the only direct reference to that country or culture in the afore mentioned movie). Batallas en el cielo Its probably easier to understand in the context of not only Japanese cinema but mostly its contemporary literature. That is probably a safer way to justify the director's obsession with the grotesque, particularly and most evidently the exploited use of obese or old naked bodies. Not portraying but actually engaged into "contrasting intercourse". In Battles in the sky, there is probably a couple of perhaps too evident metaphors. He being the gruesome, dirty or "bad" things if you will, behaving wrongful and undecisive not really knowing why, while at the same time, desires, all the purity innocence or what have you, embodied in Ana, of course she playing the only bit of selflessness, common sense or "good" to put it in bushian dichotomy. This theory covers sense clearly after she tell him to turn himself in... (thats all ill say about the plot) However i do think Reygadas blows over the top. he doesn't seem to understand that the movies are about representing things, not just filming them. Explain: it is a matter of respect to your actors to make em act in order for them to make us believe, so we DO NOT need to see the actor actually peeing on himself, a mere less degrading representation that looks just as effective would do, same aplies for the the erection portrayed and the pointless ness of so much nudity and sex scenes between the (fat couple), I'm not criticizing him for giving us a glimpse on his view of reality represented, but on the fact that this reality is not often "represented" but just shown straight out of the can for the sake of bluring the limits between feature film and pornography.

are you kidding me?

[gooberbrain · 2/10 · 24 February 2006]

I live and work in LA. Here's the reason for my rating. First you take a random porn movie off the shelf, then you replace the physically attractive but creepy-brained human beings with the super ultra low rent versions of the same people. Only now they're large and less attractive, save one gravel-voiced sex cat, and they really truly believe they are making art. This causes every action and thought and move of the camera to s l o w w a y the f * * k d o w n. Then you take out most of the sex and replace it with documentary footage of, well, Mexico City.

It creates a drugged-out kind of sensation watching it, by planting actors like stiff cardboard cutouts in scene after scene, usually staring into space amid saying a line or two like "I just kidnapped a kid" in subtitled slang. Then we're at a whore house to dangle the would-be sexual carrot for a bit, and it's back to staring at a fat dude in a cloud of farm dust. As though it's in the same metaphysical dimension as watching City of God or Capote... or Harry freaking Potter. It blows my mind that there isn't a 14 year old in Quebec with a digital video phone that hasn't put together a more compelling film to replace one like this in the indie theaters. Adults having sex and all.

The true offense of Battle in Heaven isn't that it's a transparently disguised mindless self indulgence which only has common-thread relevance in a world that doesn't exist in reality (a 2006 world thirsting for high-art-concept low budget motion photographs of naked central casting hopefuls). It's not that you can see the actress' head tracking the camera and then relaxing when it landed on her, or the splicing of the edit in the bell ringing scene, or the totally scuzzy texture and manipulatively depressing guiding hand of the story and of its director. The real burr under my saddle was the potential I thought was there from watching the first scene, which seemed so erotic and new and animalistic and folksy and deeply visceral. It was arousing. Then, the movie seemed to relentlessly punish me, pummel me for hours and hours into a Latin America submission. The movie made me embarrassed to have been turned on at the beginning. More than that, it made me feel a little repulsed even at the thought of sex. When I got home I told actually told my pet parrot that a piece of me had just died. That hormonal piece that gets excited at the gates of Heaven even though what awaits me is just another Battle. Watching this film aged me. I grew up more than I wanted to today. It was icky.

I'm normally one to shun mean spirited criticism of other people's art, but obviously this is where I draw the line. These filmmakers deserve many things, but participation in Hollywood isn't one of them. I should know, I was in Gigli.

Provoking landscapes

[frakec · 7/10 · 7 November 2005]

National references and debates of explicitness aside, this film has some very interesting uses of photography. The director creates spaces with an unreal or detached feel to them (thanks in a large way to the way the sound is used), which perhaps allude to the unreal place the main character inhabits at that time in his mind.

Surprisingly, there are also a few touches of humour (two incidents in particular involving passengers in cars), which serve to break up some a monotony which could develop around what is a very bleak picture.

In conclusion, not spectacular, but a promising turn in the development of this director, in what is an interesting study on the extremes of desire.

Overly Symbolic and Exploitative Treatise on Class and Sexual Relations

[noralee · 3/10 · 15 March 2006]

"Battle in Heaven (Batalla en el cielo)" is a heavy-handed symbolic linking of class colonialism with sexual obsession and violence.

We get a lot of nationalistic symbolism as the central "Marcos", bodyguard to the General, spends a lot of time supervising the raising and the lowering of the Mexican flag (and I assume the various double entendres of up and down the flagpole and a lot more phallic images penetrating vulva stands-in).

We see sudden bloody violence spurred by sexual and other frustrations or just that writer/director Carlos Reygadas has seen a lot of Asian Extreme cinema with similar themes.

We get a lot of controlling religious symbolism, culminating in a self-flagellating pilgrimage. Cynicism about celebrity and soccer players is thrown into the mix as well.

Compared to "Bubble", the use of nonprofessional actors here seems like an exploitation of their faces and especially of their bodies, with very long close-ups of every part of them in unsympathetic poses, as the camera is almost as documentary-like static as in the work of Michael Haneke. Filled with tawdry, explicit male fantasies that could be construed as misogynistic, it wasn't a coincidence that I was the only woman in the theater, let alone that most of the older men were wearing long raincoats (though two did walk out half way through as even they could figure out it was much more political than erotic).

Other than as symbols, none of the characters make much sense as human beings, with the possible exception of Marcos's wife, who I felt somewhat kindly towards about her involvement in a bizarre kidnapping. The General's daughter's, "Ana"s somewhat older boyfriend "Jaime" was at least cute, but her sexual appetites seemed a lot more fantasy than even realistic as a criticism of the teasing of the pampered upper class leeches.

The sound design is intriguing, as sounds from a radio, a tractor, a religious procession and service all seem to set "Marcos" off in his existential acts.

Commendably, the subtitles were black-outlined for legibility, so one could focus on reading those instead of looking at boring full frontal nudity and sexual acts.

the most beautiful and resonant pre-title sequence in the past decade

[cgibson14 · 10/10 · 25 August 2005]

Much has been made of the gratuitous opening sequence in Reygadas latest picture. Allow me to dispel any fears, this is the most beautiful and resonant pre-title sequence in the past decade. We see the nude Carlos' head and chest and sense it's the prurient cliché of the study of a man's naked soul. Reygadas lulls us into this feeling and then slowly pans down to dissolve our preconceptions. The beautiful music beats giving a real sense of emotional turmoil and we pans down to see the almost child-like (in terms of size beside Marcos) Ana administering fellatio. What could have simply been dismissed as shock tactics is undermined by the unsexiness of the sequence and the music which reaches crescendo as the bored Marcos attains orgasm. The black screened title sequence comes at the peak of the music, we are hooked entirely and excited by the emotional resonance produced by the two protagonists about whom we know nothing about. The film is littered with moments wherein the music reaches such a pitch that we cannot but feel for these ostensibly detached and remote characters, and therein lies Reygadas skill. The film works on a number of levels, parallels are drawn between the rife kidnapping problems in Mexico City and Jesus experiences spent in Hell in the 3 days following his Crucifixion. In Edinburgh Reygadas and his actress Anapola Mushkadiz talked and it was interesting to find how autobiographical his film is. The characters retain their own names and the lead Carlos actually was Reygadas father's chauffeur for many years (and an untrained actor). Anapola Mushkadiz, who is a quiet little phenomenon, has never previously acted and showed little ambition to do so again, attributed her performance entirely to Reygadas. Clearly one of the best current directors with influences of Antonioni and Tarkovsky, he curiously reflected that his next film would be happier, curious his sure touch for the darker reaches in everyday life. Rarely does so subtle and out-right thought-provoking a film get made.

A disturbing movie and very 'Catholic'

[mabuse786 · 7/10 · 30 March 2006]

Well, I felt watching this movie that it is sometimes very pathetic and in the same way very Catholic or 'fundamentalistic' in any sense of believing. However, it was interesting to watch for me until Marcos kills his real love. This scene wasn't real for me at all and I couldn't understand this scene except for throwing in Catholic believes. However, the movie tries to be 'shocking' by it's explicit sex scenes - which are just one thing: REAL. I would summarize this movie as 'One guy fells in love with the one he took care since she was a baby and is lost in his daily live'. This means he doesn't have so many emotions for his family any more and his love for the 'strange women' becomes stronger and stronger and he adores her. At th end, he knows he did something or many things wrong and kills himself by going on a pilgrimage. It's worth to watch you, because it let's you dive into a unique and different world. At the end, it didn't tell me very much about life but it gives you a different angle of view.

'Battle in heaven' is a difficult film whose events are witnessed on earth by Mexican director Carlos Reygadas !!!!

[FilmCriticLalitRao · 4/10 · 30 May 2015]

It can be said with certainty that all students of cinema would be completely mesmerized by camera angles used in 'Battle in Heaven'. Watching its deft camera work, one can easily say that the film's DOP Diego Martínez Vignatti has been given complete freedom to capture all kinds of emotions from characters' faces as well as from items surrounding them. One important scene shows two actors busily copulating with excitement. It is interesting to observe how the next scene quietly takes viewers out from the bedroom's window to a neighboring area where a television antenna is being installed. This is one positive point about this film's technical prowess. One problem area concerns sex scenes which are not easy to watch. This has nothing to do with prudish attitudes but there is blatant de- glamorization of sex. In mainstream media, sex is glamorized to such an extent that viewers are foolishly led to believe that it looks good only when beautiful, handsome and smart people are engaged in sexual activities. This is one reason why there are not many viewers who would appreciate watching how fat as well as ugly people copulate ? As far as narration is concerned, it is unfortunate that characters have not been developed to a large extent. This might be viewed as a major disappointment by viewers as characters' motivations are not clear. Director Carlos Reygadas works hard to reveal the behavioral traits of people especially in depicting how do people behave especially outside the comfort of their homes. This is one reason why the rich versus poor angle is explored but at a superficial level. As a last work, in spite of its inherent weak points, Battle in heaven can still be considered an average viewing experience as it says a lot by using limited amount of words.

awesome cinematic tour of life in urban hell

[p-gonzo · 9/10 · 5 May 2006]

Battle in Heaven is an epic adventure in film in the urban world. It thrusts the viewer into many small worlds without fully explaining each world or how they are connected. You must be open and receive this film or you might be frustrated. The camera-work is radical in style yet actually slow and simple. It's just that nobody takes this truly panoramic approach. The use of music is also powerful and moving. Reygadas has really proved himself a force in cinema with this film.

Thematically, the film touches on many views -- one example if the fact that almost everyone looks ugly in this film, yet not repulsive. There is also a sense of raw sexual abandonment despite the lack of eroticism.

As well, the film deals with Mexican nationalism, and its Catholicism, and the army, in ways that will have relevance for Mexicans. There is beauty in this movie and the feeling of life's inherent tragedy. Decadence is present and evil casually introduced as an aside. You will also be awed by the bravery of the actors and moved by the raw and close-to-real sex acts.

Down to earth, slow moving, atmospheric movie about a crazy fat guy

[Matthew12222 · 7/10 · 24 September 2010]

This movie is NOT for Hollywood-lovers who need the plot spelled out word for word to them. The atmosphere is a STRONG point it stands out for that.

To answer some of the less attentive viewers comments. -They're a poor family, they kidnapped the kid for RANSOM MONEY. People ,even poor ones, will pay for their loved one. Eluded to while Marco and his wife talk. -Surprise, surprise, the general's daughter is a nympho. She works at a sex boutique (for money I believe). You don't need some background story to understand someone could just be addicted to sex. -Marco looses it. There's no Hollywood "she killed my father". Guilt for screwing her? She knows about the dead kid and wants him to turn himself in? Angry a slut is giving him moral advice? Possibly didn't want her screwing other guys anymore? -He goes to the pilgrimage to seek forgiveness for all that stuff he's done.

It's a very sensual movie answering: what do you hear? what do you see? How do you feel?

Some scenes are slow, just like in real life, waiting for someone or looking around. Everyday things that don't happen in 6.23 seconds like in Hollywood stuff. To soak in the details and understand what it must be like, to experience being there, takes time.

Some of the BEST scenes, where in the car. Like driving in the traffic. Great scene felt like you were THERE in the car.

There is some inconsistency. The couple was morbidly obese. They're supposed to be poor. How can poor people get so FAT?! Down to earth, I guess that happens in real life, BUT that was nasty. They did have a very real relationship. Nothing superficial.

Overall a good movie, compared to other movies not as good. If you want to get an inside look into Mexican life, enjoy movies with strong real feelings scenes or value something out of the ordinary. MUST WATCH.

Dull, lifeless, lacking plot or character development. Relying on shocking scenes for recognition.

[PyrolyticCarbon · 1/10 · 26 August 2005]

There are some elements that are without a doubt needed for a movie, let my try and tick them off, please stop me if I go too deep or too fast.

The first, is a picture. Without this it's what could be called audio, often heard on radio, CD, MP3, etc. Interestingly audio is not an absolute requirement for a movie. The second, and perhaps what failed this movie, is story telling, yes that's right, an actual story which is told and progresses through the length of the movie. Not a two line blurb that is padded out with numerous shots of nothing. I could end the review there, but since I had the strength of character to stay for the length of the movie I think I'll return the compliment.

The actual story in this movie, if all the other scenes were removed, could be told in under five minutes. The rest comprises of long, slow moving shots of people walking, standing, corridors, buildings, scenery, and non too erotic sex. Saying that, the story that we are told is minimal, are we supposed to be guessing the rest ourselves? I found no desire for the story or the characters, so why would I, never mind could I from the sparse information given.

Now when I talk about slow shots, I am talking about a five to ten second slow pan showing a character turn their head one way, followed by another long shot of their head turning the other way and the camera turning again. Or the excruciating scenes of characters just standing and looking. It was difficult to wait for the camera to catch up. The movie needed so much more editing, as it stand it would bring it down to a short, but there were many aspects of the story that could have actually been attempted to be explored on screen, even in a minimalist way.

When an old man is wheeled out in front of two characters in the street we're treated to an agonising scene mirroring that in The Rocky Horror Picture Show although this is totally serious. It's that moment when the Professor first appears and everyone calls out everyone else's name, slowly passing around the room. Funny there, painful here.

It was also difficult to stay with the most unerotic and uncomfortable sex scenes I've ever seen in my life. During the opening scene we're treated to the main character, a somewhat overweight man standing before us naked. The camera pans down his body to what looks like an underage girl engaged in fellatio, with tears running down her face. This isn't nice, and something I struggled to sit through.

It doesn't get better either. A scene of him masturbating to a football match was equally unappealing, even though you saw nothing. There's a sex scene later on with the same girl having sex with Marcos, the lead, and we're treated to a lovely shot of his fading erection and a shot of her vagina. Lovely. Add another fellatio scene between these characters and you're almost celibate. The icing on the cake however is in the scene between Marcos and his wife who is most definitely obese. I struggled.

The actors are real people, and it shows. They're totally lifeless and did not even engage me. I found myself wondering how much time had passed and wishing for shots to complete rather than watching the same shot for the next ten to fifteen seconds. A feeling I felt once before with The House of Mirth.

For me, I don't understand the comment I heard later from one critic who thought it was amazing. She was really hung up on whether some inane detail of the plot was known by other characters. Another critic turned to her saying it was truly awful and there was no story, yet she loved it and defended the story. The more she talked the more I realised that the story she was talking about existed in her head as an extrapolation of the story that we saw on the screen. Was it that the Director intended us to derive the story from small details interspersed with these shots? I don't like being spoon fed, but I would like more than a few crumbs to try and taste the meal.

I'd hate to say it's a terrible movie, you have to consider the context of the Country's movie industry, the Country itself, etc., but for me it was dull, lifeless, and taught to watch.