The Minus Man

Date:   May 19, 2000

Cast:

Directors: Hampton Fancher   

Back in the early 90’s, Michael Moore’s wonderful, but under appreciated television series TV Nation performed an experiment.  They rented a house in a neighborhood, and proceeded to “execute”, for lack of a better word, questionable acts.  These included chainsaws at hours, red splattered curtains, ominous silhouettes, and the dragging of oddly shaped trash bags to the dumpster in the dark of night.  The purpose was to exploit the typical response by neighbors, when a serial killer is caught amongst their midst.  Almost always, the phrase “He was such a nice person, we never noticed anything suspicious.”  Their test was successful, and the point was proven.  Apparently that skit influenced Hamilton Fancher, the writer of Blade Runner. His debut movie, The Minus Man, delves into the water of what if the boy next door really wasn’t what he appeared to be. 

What really goes on in the mind of a serial killer?  Is it the maddening echo of incoherent voices, or could it actually be rational normal thoughts of someone who feels that they are doing society a favor by their actions.  This is not new ground, either for deep thinkers, or filmmakers.  Most films, in one way or another, center around what makes people do certain things, or react certain ways.  The Minus Man is yet another foray into this field, taking the road of not necessarily focusing on the actions themselves, nor the causes, but the immediate thoughts, and reactions of the person committing the crimes.  The movie wants to be an in-depth, psychological caricature of small-town life, and one man’s revelations and reasons for existence.  However somewhere along the way, it forgets to make a compelling case one way or the other.   Whatever the message is gets lost in the effort to make quirky, but still stereotypical characters, reacting to a dark force that has befallen them.  This could’ve been something wonderful, but instead becomes a film that piques curiosities in the same manner that Twin Peaks did. 

Vann appears in a small Northwestern town under mysterious circumstances; a drifter, with a quiet aloof charm who claims to just “take the natural momentum of a person and draw it towards him.”  This is unfortunate because he has a dark side, and once unveiled, the cloak of innocence is lifted from the town and its residents.  He is a killer that does things not for pleasure, or necessity, but because he seems to believe that he is doing favors, or just expediting the inevitable.  On the exterior, Vann maintains his cool, however two mysterious FBI agents torment his mind and soul.  The point and purpose of these agents is never completely clear, they appear to act as his conscience.  The characters, and this storyline, are confusing and muddled.

There is never really a plot to progress, nor a reason that most will keep watching, except for the curiosity of if he will get caught, or what he will do next.  Lacking a plot, a movie must rely on well-written characters, another spot where this movie fails.  The towns’ residents are stereotyped, and this slice of society has been done better in numerous other films like Waiting for Guffman and Cookie’s Fortune.

Wilson’s performance is acceptable, but he still begs to be taken seriously, since he always seems to be on the verge of bursting into a fit of silliness. This dulls the effect of the voice-overs, which are sometimes introspective, but mostly muddled statements involving fate, decisions, causes and effects.  These have all the depth of Dr Seuss explaining Freud.  The supporting cast isn’t much better. Cox and Ruehl are a couple or tortured souls, who now see fit to love, and torture each other almost by their mere proximity. Their performances are cardboard and stereotypically ineffective.   The biggest waste of casting here has to be Garofalo.  She does her best to interject her spunky charm, but is given a character that plays mousy, puppy-dog, love struck, which just does not befit her.  She needs the freedom to let loose, and this role just corrals her talents.

Ultimately, The Minus Man comes out more in the negative, as its title exists.  In a movie where the study of its characters is meant to overshadow the story, these characters have to at least be interesting, and inspire the audience to want to watch to see what they will do next and why.  It takes a very deft writing touch to do this and Fancher never quite achieves his dark, edgy societal introspective purpose.  The movie does have a mildly quirky appeal, but never breaks any new ground past it’s curious, but unoriginal, premise of peeking into the mind of a serial killer.   Minus Man ends up as just another entry into the serial killer genre that falls short of its potential. ($$ out of $$$$)

Agree? Disagree, Questions? Comments?

Tell Me Here

Actor and movie information courtesy of the

Go To Reel Rambling Page

Also see my reviews at the of which I am a proud associate member