The violent crime thriller Roger Ebert hated with a passion: “A scummy little sewer of a movie”
Everyone has their own favourite genre of cinema, and if a person who gets paid to criticise movies ends up being forced to watch a succession of films that tick all of their least favourite boxes, then a pattern will inevitably start to emerge. For Roger Ebert, the uptick in violent revenge thrillers in the early 1980s led to several scathing reviews, with one particular actor becoming a recurring theme.
While he had nothing against the notion or depiction of onscreen violence, Ebert drew the line when it was used gratuitously. If it’s used for the right reasons, it can be a powerful narrative tool to further immerse the audience in the protagonist’s plight. However, when a character is being violent just for the sake of it, then it’s often difficult to watch.
With a face that looked like it was carved out of granite and a screen persona built on the tough guy archetype, Charles Bronson kicked a few asses during his time. The star lent his name to several classic pictures, but when he leaned heavier than usual into his rogue antihero archetype in the ’80s, Ebert was perpetually aghast.
The critic had already blasted Bronson’s first Death Wish sequel as “morally repugnant” and needlessly violent, and history repeated itself the following year when the actor headlined 1983’s 10 to Midnight. The story saw Bronson as a veteran cop who bends the rule of law in an effort to track down and apprehend a violent serial killer who preys on women, and Ebert despised it.
“This is a scummy little sewer of a movie,” he wrote in his review. “A cesspool that lingers sadistically on shots of a killer terrifying and killing helpless women, and then is shameless enough to end with an appeal to law and order. The people who made From 10 to Midnight have every right to be ashamed of themselves — and that includes Charles Bronson, whose name on the marquee is the only reason anybody would come to see it.”
Although he wasn’t against the idea of Bronson returning to a genre that had served him so well, Ebert did have one pertinent question: “This movie indicates that Charles Bronson just doesn’t care any more and is just going through the motions for the money. I admired his strong, simple talent once. What is he doing in a garbage disposal like this?” If anything, he probably answered it himself.
What was Ebert’s overview of 10 to Midnight? That it was “utter BS” and “ineptly made.” The final scene? “Disgusting.” Clearly, it was 102 minutes of utter torture that he couldn’t wait to end, which also made it two years in a row that Bronson had headlined a thriller so reprehensible he could barely believe his eyes.
