ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

edo deweert through a cinematographic stroke of genius, we are embarking on a trip through the roads of Mexico city in which we hang left and right in the turns the car takes. this is a story of unrequited love and one that shows that sex is not only the exclusive domain of the ashton kutchers and demi moores of this world. and sex is here committed the way most of us have sex\: naked, not under the covers and not with our bras and undies on. the film is inhabited by normal, everyday people, fat people, old people, crippled people. and who would have thought that fat people have sex??!! the sex in this film is not gratuitous. we all have sex in our lives, deal with it. but even though marco has sex with his larger than life wife, he dreams of having it with the young and beautiful daughter of the general he is assigned to drive to and fro. he has become fixated on her and dreams of a sex scene with her, though she has indicated she does not want any sex with him. thus he devises a plan to ensure that they "live happily after in sexual bliss"

Matthew12222 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.

Boba_Fett1138 Lately, lots of successful and good Mexican director are emerging. Just think about Guillermo del Toro, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alfonso Cuarón. Mexican cinema is hotter than ever. Carlos Reygadas is not as well known as those previous mentioned Mexican directors but that all has got to do with the fact that his movies aren't exactly mainstream. But even if you don't like the movie, you should see that Carlos Reygadas is a great director.Yes, it's a fairly artistic and unusual movie, that uses some interesting film making techniques and approaches. So expect lots of long and moving shots and a 'long' slow moving story, with lots of staring, oh yes and of course explicit sex sequences. So if you can't handle this, just don't bother to watch. It's all about the art of film-making in this one. It makes "Batalla en el cielo" above all a beautiful movie to watch. It were also mostly its visuals and directing approach of this movie that made me like and enjoy it as much as I did. It was not the story and most certainly not the acting. To give the movie an even more realistic and particular approach, mostly non-actors were used for this movie, although Anapola Mushkadiz surely is a discovery. It was obvious that most actors involved had never acted in any form before. I can surely understand why the film-makers decided on this. It gives the movie an even more special style and atmosphere and enhances the movie its effect. Carlos Reygadas is more an artist than film maker as this movie shows. He didn't particularly tried to create a movie but more an observation of real people in real but not every day situations, each looking for something different. Unfortunately the movie does get a bit worse when it heads toward the ending and it dozes off even more.But no, this movie is not as far off and weird as I probably make it sound right now. The movie is also perfectly watchable for those who don't like art-house movies but still want to see something different for a change.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

forozco-1 Dealing to be impartial and generous with the last work of Carlos Reygadas, I could recognize its effort to obtain a different film, cradle absolutely in personal convictions and without considerations for the Box office. But that "effort" is also what bothers me: Too many pretensions for so miserable result: 1)Its pretension of veracity like a documented reality or more likely a "cinéma vérité" work, using real people and non-actors, impostors of emotional states for a very diluted script fails resoundingly: A script exists. And it is perceivable that their individuals or "characters" are acting, and as is expected with nonprofessional actors, acting poorly. Their dialogs are unbelievable. And contributing to the feeling of unreal and falsification, the director uses abundant sequences in fixed positions where the characters seemed to be forced dummies, nothing that corresponds with the naturalness of the human body in the plotted situations. Everything is false, artificial and unreal.2)I think questionable that the "authenticity" had some aesthetic merit, or therefore, any "Big Brother" or Real TV would be equal to the last work of Reygadas: In them there is no plot, and the people are real either. I do not believe that Carlos Reygadas finds in "The Real Cancun" some aesthetic merit, nevertheless, this one has the same characteristics that he looks for in "Batalla en el Cielo". Both fulfill with his simplistic belief in "real cinema": not directed by history at all, being something unreachable, similar to music experience, been perceived of different form by each member from the hearing. Semiotics does not come to the case, but considering image and a spoken language similar ways to obtains diffuse effects like the music experience, without considering the implicit qualities of precision of those means, has not hit the target.3)Its pretension of reflection and depth with its long pauses like Tarkovsky did, doing a film totally rate devoid is disturbed, breaking any calm or reflexive feelings, with some real jewels of involuntary humor, as the gross and shocking moves in, any deep feelings or reflections on the human condition moves out. Crazy laughs or repulsion stays.4)When the film has finished, I felt to be the filthy accomplice of a director without scruples, with has so much passion for create, but very little to say. That his work is fundamentally based on the value of ordinary people who were used to expose themselves in cinematographic sessions of explicit sex in a film with many artistic pretensions, but where the only art were the sounds and music of the sound track.