The Charles Bronson Thriller Roger Ebert Called A 'Scummy Little Sewer Of A Movie'

In 1983, Charles Bronson starred in "10 to Midnight," a little-known crime thriller in which he played a detective on the tail of a serial killer. The film didn't make any money and was met with disappointing reviews. According to Roger Ebert, however, the film was "utter B.S." and one of the worst movies ever made, to the extent it wasn't even deserving of a star rating.

Roger Ebert hated a lot of movies, but many irked him in a way that actually led to some of his best writing. When Ebert got fired up we were treated to his most scintillating prose, like when he described infamous John Travolta flop "Battlefield: Earth" as "like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way." But even "Battlefield: Earth" got half a star, which is more than can be said for the 50-odd films upon which Ebert bestowed an abject "thumbs down."

One film that does belong to that tragic list is "10 to Midnight." Ebert actually quite liked "Death Wish," for which Bronson was best-known at the time. The critic gave the film three stars and though he called it a "quasifascist advertisement for urban vigilantes" he was ultimately seduced by what he described as "a slick and exciting action movie." A decade or so later, however, Ebert had turned on Bronson and he didn't hold back.

To this day, Charles Bronson is best-known for playing vigilante Paul Kersey in the "Death Wish" movies. Roger Ebert was a fan at first, but when "Death Wish II" arrived in 1982 he delivered one of his most scathing reviews. "What's most shocking about 'Death Wish II,'" he wrote, "is the lack of artistry and skill in the filmmaking [...] The movie doesn't contain an ounce of life. It slinks onto the screen and squirms for a while, and is over." The following year, the critic would once again tear Bronson a new one but this time he seemed even more upset, asking "What is he doing in a garbage disposal like this?"

If you were to look up "10 to Midnight" on Rotten Tomatoes you'd see a disappointing but not disgraceful 40% critic score. Clearly, this was not one of Charles Bronson's best movies. Delve deeper, however, and you'll see that Ebert is the only "top critic" included in that score, and if he had things his way the Tomatometer would be at a straight zero.

"This is a scummy little sewer of a movie," began 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." Clearly, the critic was not only disappointed but offended, and felt that the filmmakers and Bronson himself should be "ashamed of themselves." But what was it that got him so upset beyond the "terrifying and killing helpless women?" A better question might be, what didn't get Ebert upset about "10 to Midnight."

"10 to Midnight" is a neo noir-thriller in the "Death Wish" vein. It was directed by English filmmaker J. Lee Thompson, an old hand who had been churning out hits since the 1950s. In the '80s, he oversaw multiple Charles Bronson thrillers for Cannon films and their first collaboration wasn't the most auspicious.

"10 to Midnight" starred Bronson as detective Leo Kessler and Andrew Stevens as his partner Paul McAnn. The pair are put in charge of tracking down serial killer Warren Stacey (Gene Davis), who's been brutally murdering women who reject his sexual advances. Soon, Kessler's daughter becomes a target, and the detective starts to bend the law in order to stop this murderous deviant.

Critics weren't impressed, but Roger Ebert was incensed. The critic was never a fan of violence against women on-screen. Ebert didn't mince words about a forgotten Audrey Hepburn thriller after being "totally appalled" by scenes depicting the strangulation of female characters. But with "10 to Midnight" it wasn't just the violence that upset him. Ebert described the film as "ineptly made," lamenting the way in which key scenes seemed to have been cut from the film altogether. He had also seemingly given up on its star altogether, writing, "This movie indicates that Charles Bronson just doesn't care any more, and is just going through the motions for the money."

At base, however, it was what the critic termed "a lack of humanity" that really earned the film its "thumbs down" rating. "The movie lingers on the faces of screaming women," he wrote. "It revels in its bloodbaths. Gore spurts all over the screen. The final sequence is so disgusting that I wrote the first sentence of this review in my mind while I was watching it."