Well, at least Tarantino managed to make a Western that DIDN'T put me to sleep...

Rating: 8/10 (4 January 2013)

Oscar made me do it. Yep. The only reason I sat through two hours and forty-five minutes of a Tarantino Western was because I knew this film was going to get Oscar nominations and thus, I was obliged to see it. But I hate Westerns and I am not a fan of Tarantino, so I knew this could be a tough ride.
I was partially right.
This long, drawn-out story of slavery revenge most certainly had its moments...the problem is that it takes far too many minutes to get through them all.
The story is simple enough. Jamie Foxx, in an excellent performance, plays Django, a slave separated from his wife and sold off to a plantation two years before the civil war. While being transported, the caravan is intercepted by Dr. King Schultz, played to perfection (again) by the incomparable Christophe Waltz, who knows Django knows what the three men he needs to kill look like, and thus "buys" his freedom. In exchange for helping him track his bounty, Schultz indeed offers Django his freedom. However, when he learns the story of Django being separated from his wife...and sees Django's marksmanship... Shultz offers to help Django find his wife if he helps Shultz kill all the men on his bounty list. With the promise of freedom, money AND his wife, how could Django refuse?
In theory, "Django Unchained" has all the elements of a truly great film...and that says a lot coming from a Western-hating, non-Tarantino fan. The story is great. Foxx is great, but Waltz is utterly fantastic...and will be looking at yet another Oscar nomination. Kerry Washington, as Django's wife Broomhilda, proves that she is not only unequivocally stunning to watch but an absolutely exceptional actress. Hell, even Leonardo Dicaprio, as Broomhilda's owner, turns an excellent performance that is worthy of an Oscar nomination if he so gets it. Need I even mention that Samuel L. Jackson is perfection? And then there's Don Johnson! Yes! Don Johnson!!!
So, pair all these great performances with a great script, loads of violence, two scenes that even made ME squint and squirm, along with beautiful art direction, costumes, cinematography and the controversial overuse of a certain word which actually manages to desensitize you to its utterance, this must be a pretty awesome film, no?
Not entirely.
It lacks one key ingredient: evidence of an EDITOR. With a running time of two hours and forty-five minutes, this film managed to run way too long. I mean, way too long. This film could have easily been tightened up to run at a smoother, quicker pace and shave off at least thirty minutes. But certain scenes seemed to needlessly drag on, leaving a film which has so many good elements but leaves you mindful of the time as you begin to shift in your seat, your buns going numb. Although "Inglorious Basterds," arguably Tarantino's best film, had a scene or two that ran longer than they needed to, I don't remember shifting in my seat nearly as much. What could have been one of the best films of the year merely took far too long to get to the point. But hey, it didn't bore me, so I give Tarantino credit for making potentially the least tedious Western I have ever endured.