Jay Rohr
1780 proves there’s a pitch for more violence at living-history museums like Colonial Williamsburg. The movie offers a familiar blend of thriller and period piece. Utilizing an established plot, it should be an engaging, action-oriented suspense tale full of satisfying twists. Instead, 1780 fails to grasp its own formula while wasting time on style that adds little substance.
The story centers on Honore (veteran TV actor PJ Marshall), a trapper living in the remote woods with his son. One afternoon, the boy stumbles upon a gravely injured man in the forest. Tending to the fellow’s wounds, Honore discovers he is a Revolutionary War soldier being pursued by British troops. It isn’t long before a siege ensues, revealing dark secrets from the trapper’s past, and inspiring all involved to wonder if anything that costs blood is worth buying.
Among its various themes, 1780 tells a tale of loyalty, freedom, and family. Some slender threads plucked from The Red Badge of Courage help bolster a decent plot. If not for pacing and dialogue, 1780 might be more engaging. However, watching men reload muskets doesn’t have the same kinetic sense of impending doom as fierce fellows slapping in another clip.
Essentially, the aim for some semblance of historical accuracy occasionally gets in the way. Whether it’s archaic dialogue or an accurate depiction of rifles reloading, director Dustin Fairbanks, on his sophomore feature film, locks in on moments that don’t always need emphasis. For instance, during a foot chase, as characters race through a hail of bullets, the camera takes time to zoom in on a shooter’s eye until so close the audience can see the glistening sclera. This kind of fancy stylization serves no real purpose cinematically, ultimately turning it into fat, clogging the flow.
It can also be misleading. In another scene of 1780, a bullet plucked from a wound is dropped on the floor. The camera follows the bloody round as it rolls away. This feels like a setup for something later, but nothing ever involves that musket ball again, and if a scene with it ended up on the cutting room floor, surely the filmmakers should have thought to nix the aforementioned moment entirely. These kinds of things cause the pace of 1780 to move like a QWOP runner. Every time it starts to generate forward momentum, something impedes the flow. That’s because the movie doesn’t really know how to build the suspense it needs to remain totally engrossing.
It’s a shame since 1780 has some fantastic production elements. The costumes worn by the cast are superb. The central premise is a perfect tent pole and has worked well in other flicks such as 2021’s Old Henry. Information, though, is often delivered in exposition dump monologues or extended conversations during action moments. One minute, bullets are flying all around, striking dangerously close, then someone is relating details of their backstory while all the combat takes a convenient pause. The pieces are there for a compelling narrative. They just fail to flow steadily in harmony.
One would think director Dustin Fairbanks might know how to orient all this into something cohesive. His previous directorial effort was Warning Shot in 2018, which features essentially the same premise: a lone individual in an isolated siege. Yet, 1780 rarely picks up the pace to be the thriller it could. Likewise, the cast is decent enough. D.J. Qualls (The New Guy) appears as a Revolutionary soldier with more gumption than good sense. R. Keith Harris (The Walking Dead) portrays a British officer with the subtle savvy necessary to be a cunning adversary. P. J. Marshall (Underground) provides Honore with the intensity of a fellow living a hard life, burdened by shame and regret, while Kamilo Alonzo (Juego de mentiras) conveys a son unsure if he should fear his father. Meanwhile, John Potvin (Forever War), Vince Eisenson (The Good Lord Bird), and Conor Kowalski (Nope) offer characters that facilitate a few twists, especially Kowalski, who often shares the audience’s doubts about various motivations.
Kevin Spacey appears as a colorful character who seems to love the sound of his own voice. Since falling from Hollywood’s embrace, the well-known actor has been popping up in indie flicks such as 1780. If one were to argue that it affords him the chance to experiment, the choices made in his performance feel like a failed attempt at a take on southern something. There’s nothing of the subtle charm seen in 30-plus-year-old films such as Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil or the effort of someone actually acting Southern, as in A Time to Kill.
Furthermore, Spacey is a bit of an albatross. Even if his performance were exceptional, his mere presence is likely to deter viewers from seeing the film. Although watching is a choice every individual must make for themselves, those who decide to still give 1780 a shot aren’t going to be getting the actor at his best. Blame it on the terrible wig he wears, if you must.
The main reason to see this flick is for its fierce desire to tell a historically accurate thriller. Granted, the archaic dialogue doesn’t land for a variety of reasons. Performers just don’t sell it, and the script doesn’t help make it smooth, but there is something worth admiring in the effort. Cinematically, 1780 has promise, if it didn’t waste time on unnecessarily stylized moments. As such, the tightness needed to keep things at a thrilling pace just isn’t there, while performers stumble over clunky antiquated terms in exchanges that lack fervor.
The result is a muddled film with a solid premise pulled through the mud of its own mistakes by a determined cast. Performers do their best, occasionally elevating moments into what this indie thriller needs, but never enough to rise above the mire of 1780’s imperfections. While tempting to say this is the kind of movie people leave on for their pets so the animals don’t feel alone, it’s closer to a lazy Sunday thriller folks half-watch while dozing on the couch.
