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.

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

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.

I don't disagree that this movie has great flaws. I mean the dialog could be more fluid, the editing could be more crisp, so on so forth.But while the movie is choppy as a whole, some of the scenes are breathtakingly raw. Like the part where Marcos is driving Ana from the airport, you can see, even almost smell, the city's absurd contrast between its economic classes. When Marcos is just staring into oblivion, you know you're looking at a real person, whose sweat is his own sweat and the grease on his face is his own grease.There is something mysterious and incomprehensible about the faces of every single person living and struggling in the city. It is not just a face of frustration, anguish, or despair, that a typical actor might give off.It's a face that is unique to that person, one that you will never get to know probably, but when you take a glance of in the subway or the bus or the sidewalk, you know somehow you relate to them, somehow you know there's a story behind them.This movie is just a mere glance of one person. It's not quite a study of Marcos, because we never got to be let in that deeply into his past, his motives, his whatever. It's simply presenting his situations and actions as they are, not pushing any particular perspectives the way most films do, not giving us any 'insights,' 'revealing monologues' or any of that.letting us simply be the judge of him if we are judgmental, the observer if we are observant, the aloof bystander if we are one, and most likely we're a little bit of every one of those types when watching this film.And that's very commendable for a film to let the viewers ultimately be the camera and the editor of the film. Instead of telling us how to view things.