"Ten to Midnight" is an exceedingly well made thriller that blows it. The problems are many but let's get the basic story out of the way first.
Charles Bronson stars as a hardened cop (how original) with a new rookie partner (Andrew Stevens) out to track a serial killer. The killer finds people, strips naked and then does his deeds in bloody detail. Bronson is convinced he knows who the killer is, plants evidence against him, and when the deed is discovered the killer is released and, well, you just know Bronson's daughter (Lisa Eilbacher) had better watch out.
Of the MANY problems I have with the film here are some I couldn't overcome. Director J.Lee Thompson makes a mistake after the first set of brutal killings. As Hitchcock believed you hit the audience hard with an act of brutal violence so the audience is on edge the rest of the film. You don't need to show anything more because the minds of the audience will imagine things far worse. Thompson does not adhere to this. With each scene of a murder the violence gets more brutal. There is no reason for having to see a girl stabbed in the shower after having seen similar acts of violence earlier. One other bit that always bothered me. One of the early victims is a child to a friend of Bronson's. Bronson has the thankless task of going to tell the friend their daughter is dead. We see him walk up to the house and go in but then director Thompson cuts away to Bronson walking out. Why? We should see this as it gives Bronson motivation for his actions later on. If it was an editing decision it was a terrible one.
Another problem I had is the performance of Gene Davis as the killer. This is, far and away, the worst in the film and it undermines the power of the character. Davis spends most of the movie yelling and when he isn't he is as wooden as a two by four. It's hard to believe he is as clever as he was written.
Lastly, I have to describe the ludicrous final chase. Bronson has discovered the killer is after his daughter. He races to her dorm room to discover that she is gone and the killer has her. They cut to the killer and the daughter who have at least a five minute head start but sure enough Bronson, on foot, not only catches up but has gotten ahead of them. Try to hold a straight face folks because I saw it and I still don't believe it.
"10 To Midnight" had a lot of potential but the director ended up going for the gore which, I imagine, is what he thought the core audience wanted. The script is not badly written but could have used another trip through the typewriter. It's a typical Bronson thriller when it should have been so much more.
Lastly, does anyone know what the title means? It's certainly not the time of night when the killer strikes (at least not in every case). Just wondering.
Charles Bronson stars as a hardened cop (how original) with a new rookie partner (Andrew Stevens) out to track a serial killer. The killer finds people, strips naked and then does his deeds in bloody detail. Bronson is convinced he knows who the killer is, plants evidence against him, and when the deed is discovered the killer is released and, well, you just know Bronson's daughter (Lisa Eilbacher) had better watch out.
Of the MANY problems I have with the film here are some I couldn't overcome. Director J.Lee Thompson makes a mistake after the first set of brutal killings. As Hitchcock believed you hit the audience hard with an act of brutal violence so the audience is on edge the rest of the film. You don't need to show anything more because the minds of the audience will imagine things far worse. Thompson does not adhere to this. With each scene of a murder the violence gets more brutal. There is no reason for having to see a girl stabbed in the shower after having seen similar acts of violence earlier. One other bit that always bothered me. One of the early victims is a child to a friend of Bronson's. Bronson has the thankless task of going to tell the friend their daughter is dead. We see him walk up to the house and go in but then director Thompson cuts away to Bronson walking out. Why? We should see this as it gives Bronson motivation for his actions later on. If it was an editing decision it was a terrible one.
Another problem I had is the performance of Gene Davis as the killer. This is, far and away, the worst in the film and it undermines the power of the character. Davis spends most of the movie yelling and when he isn't he is as wooden as a two by four. It's hard to believe he is as clever as he was written.
Lastly, I have to describe the ludicrous final chase. Bronson has discovered the killer is after his daughter. He races to her dorm room to discover that she is gone and the killer has her. They cut to the killer and the daughter who have at least a five minute head start but sure enough Bronson, on foot, not only catches up but has gotten ahead of them. Try to hold a straight face folks because I saw it and I still don't believe it.
"10 To Midnight" had a lot of potential but the director ended up going for the gore which, I imagine, is what he thought the core audience wanted. The script is not badly written but could have used another trip through the typewriter. It's a typical Bronson thriller when it should have been so much more.
Lastly, does anyone know what the title means? It's certainly not the time of night when the killer strikes (at least not in every case). Just wondering.