I totally agree with your assessment of the second half of the film. There was a point when the chase was on through the jungle that I leaned over to my friend and said, “there’s going to be a river and waterfall coming up so he can escape.” And guess what happened, lo and behold, a waterfall?! (Of course, I guess it was different in that those pursuing also took the leap!)

And Ken, I agree, though I don’t think that all violence in film is wrong (and you agree), and the film we were discussing back then (Palindromes) was perhaps an effective use of “spectacle” to make the filmaker’s point (like Eyes Wide Shut).

I’m encouraged by this comment, Tyler. I think you can also simply substitute the words “sexuality” or “immorality” for violence and have another true statement. Indeed, this is the point I tried to make sometime ago in our discussion over Art House Films. I can certainly appreciate that Gibson is a gifted filmmaker, as are many so-called “Art House” filmmakers, but the “spectacle” often far exceeds what is necessary to tell the story effectively. Still, I appreciate this is a relative statement. One of my favourite movies of all time is Eyes Wide Shut which is arguably a spectacle of sexuality and immorality–I would simply argue it’s defensible in light of the purpose of the movie. At the same time, I have seen the unedited and edited versions of Eyes Wide Shut and must admit that the edited version, which conceals a lot of the sex acts in the climatic scene (hmmm… interesting choice of words… oh well), is not really inferior so perhaps there too I must admit the spectacle is more than is necessary.

The film left me nonplussed not on account of its violence (I was expecting more), but its pedestrian second half, which was essentially an extended chase sequence — almost an ancient version of The Fugitive — thoroughly predictable, knowing that wifey and son would be rescued at the last possible instant. But I did like the first half for the glimpse we catch of the Mayan civilization.