An enjoyable ride, albeit one that travels an uneven road and takes too long to get where it's going

Rating: 7/10 (17 January 2013)

Like Quentin Tarantino's last film, Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained is an historical revenge fantasy. This time it's a mash-up homage to Blaxploitation films and Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns. Its entertainment value stems from the primal satisfaction of watching a freed slave kill white slave traders in gruesome ways.
We're treated to Tarantino's usual masterful dialog and to some terrific performances, especially the supporting players. Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio are very engaging in their roles. And in what should be considered one of the strongest performances of his long and varied career, Samuel L. Jackson plays a house slave – the true villain of the piece.
The story takes place in the American South, a few years before the Civil War. Jamie Foxx stars as Django, a slave who is unshackled by King Schultz (Waltz) -- a German dentist-turned-bounty-hunter who needs Django's help in tracking down a trio of fugitives. Django quickly becomes Schultz's partner. "Kill white people and get paid for it?" asks Django. "What's not to like?" But Django has another quest in mind that's more personal. He wants to find his wife (Kerry Washington), rescue her from slavery, and head with her to the North. Schultz agrees to help him, and the pair set out for the plantation of Calvin Candie (DiCaprio) so that Django can find his true love and carry out a little (okay, a lot of) vengeance.
If you're looking for a thoughtful drama about a man overcoming slavery and yearning for freedom, this isn't it. No, this is really just an action movie about a man trying to rescue his princess. (The character of the wife, Broomhilda, is seriously underdeveloped and we're never really shown why Django cares for her so much -- other than the fact that, well, she looks like Kerry Washington – and really, that may be reason enough.) This also isn't an attempt to accurately recreate the slavery-era. It feels more like an attempt to recreate '70s movies about slavery.
There are also very few slavery movies that will make you laugh this hard. The movie is, at its core, very much a comedy. In one scene, members of an early version of the Ku Klux Klan complain about their hoods and the fact they can't see out of the eye-holes. It's one of the best scenes Tarantino has ever written. The only thing more satisfying than watching Klan members getting slaughtered – is watching them look like buffoons. Tarantino isn't trying to make us think or learn lessons about history. He's trying to entertain us. And, for the most part, he does his job very well.
Typical of a Tarantino film, some of the moments designed to amuse the most – involve spectacular bloodletting. Using ultra-violence as a punch line is one of the director's specialties. He paints deplorable portraits of certain characters, and then builds tension to the point that when their absurdly excessive punishment is handed out – it serves as a cathartic release. The director plays on the audience's darkest instincts, knowing that on some level, many viewers like seeing bad guys get what they deserve in especially painful ways. Especially if it's "just a movie." It's cheap. It's easy. But when choreographed by someone as skilled as Tarantino, it's also very effective.
Not all of the violence is meant to provide perverse thrills, though. There are scenes that depict the brutality and inhumanity of slavery. They are difficult to watch, but serve to make the justice that Django hands out that much more satisfying. However, this creates a balancing act. Alternating between violence that is meant to horrify and violence meant to satisfy our blood lust creates a tonal inconsistency that plagues the movie.
The violence isn't the only cause for controversy. There's also the frequent use of a certain vulgar, derogatory word for African-Americans. But its usage is historically accurate, and also mostly functions as shorthand to distinguish good guys from bad guys. If a character uses the word, it's a safe bet they're eventually going to get shot.
My primary complaint with the film, however, is the pacing. Sadly, Tarantino's longtime editor, Sally Menke, passed away before production began and her absence is perhaps the reason why the movie drags. The beginning and ending are strong, but the second act is bloated and slow moving. The film comes to a screeching halt during a tortuously long dinner scene that's meant to build tension – but instead bores us. The long dialog scene is also designed to demonstrate the depths of Candie's evil racism. But it's unnecessary, given that his despicable nature is well established the moment he first appears on screen – a harrowing scene in which he revels in watching two slaves fight to the death. The long dinner sequence also mostly sidelines the movie's main character, causing the film's momentum to stall.
Django Unchained is an enjoyable ride, albeit one that travels an uneven road and takes too long to get where it's going. If it had been steadier, leaner and about 40 minutes shorter, it may have ranked among Tarantino's best. But it's still quite an experience.