Cosie Costa | Through the Shattered Lens

Charles Bronson is Leo Kessler, a veteran detective who’s seen it all and has grown sick of a system of justice that he thinks favors criminals over their victims. When girls start getting murdered, he immediately suspects the arrogant Warren Stacy, played by Gene Davis in the best role of his career. When Kessler and his partner Paul McCann (Andrew Stevens) start putting the pressure on Stacy, the killer responds by going after Kessler’s daughter Laurie (Lisa Eilbacher). Needless to say, our hero will do anything to stop the madman, ANYTHING!

10 TO MIDNIGHT is a special movie in my house because it’s my wife’s favorite Charles Bronson film, even when she didn’t have any overall appreciation for Bronson as an actor. Luckily for her, she had me to introduce her to the rest of the iconic actor’s voluminous catalog of movies. I saw 10 TO MIDNIGHT myself when I was pretty young, probably 13 or so. I remember being scared that first night after I watched the movie when I was trying to go to sleep. My wife and I watched it today on my old VHS tape that I’ve owned going back to the late 1980’s.

There are several elements that elevate 10 TO MIDNIGHT above the average cop / slasher thrillers of the 1980’s. First, it’s Charles Bronson in the lead role. Bronson has such a strong presence on screen that his presence alone elevates almost any material. He looks great in the film, and the role gives him some good opportunities, as both a mentor to the young cop, and even more importantly, as a dad who wants to do better for his daughter. It’s a solid role that seems to fit Bronson like a glove. Second, we know from the very beginning of the movie that Warren Stacy is in fact the killer. We also know that the law seems to be working in his favor. And because of that, we’re on Kessler’s side as he goes to extreme lengths to stop his reign of terror. Finally, the script and director J. Lee Thompson go all in on the sex and violence. Examples include Stacy killing his often naked victims while he himself is in the nude. There is much talk in the film about items of a sexual nature and Stacy even has a sexual release device that almost has to be seen to be believed. It definitely adds a decadent and voyeuristic feel to the proceedings. And I haven’t even mentioned yet that it has one of the very best endings of any Bronson film, second only to THE MECHANIC, in my humble opinion.

I highly recommend 10 TO MIDNIGHT!

For a more detailed review of 10 TO MIDNIGHT, check out Lisa’s review from a couple of years back below:

Film Review: 10 to Midnight (dir by J. Lee Thompson)

Goddamn, dude. Chuck Fucking Norris. Even when the movie is terrible, Chuck is cool.

That is especially relevant when it comes to a movie like Missing In Action 2: The Beginning. Produced by Cannon Films and shot back-to-back with the first Missing in Action, The Beginning was supposed to come out first. However, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus took a look at the two movies and realized that The Beginning would work better as the 2nd film in the series. They were right though some post-production tinkering did lead to some serious errors in continuity.

(Not that anyone watching a Golan/Globus production would be worrying about continuity.)

Did you ever wonder how James Braddock (Chuck Norris) became a POW in the first place? No? Missing In Action 2 is going to show you how it happened anyway. It turns out that he and his men were captured, in 1972, by the Viet Cong when their helicopter crashed into a lake. At the start of the movie, Chuck only has a mustache. If Chuck had been fully bearded, there is no way the VC could have captured him. After Chuck and his men have spent ten years in a jungle prison, where they are forced to pick poppies for a French heroin drug lord, Chuck has grown a full beard and is finally strong enough to escape from the prison, rescue his men, and defeat the sadistic camp commandant (Soon-Tek Oh) in hand-to-hand combat. None of it is surprising but there’s enough weird stuff, like the prostitutes that the French drug dealer flies into the camp and the Australian journalist who shows up out of nowhere and is executed ten minutes later, to keep it interesting. Chuck is as stiff as always but he’s good in the action scenes and gets to show off some sweet karate moves towards the end of the movie. Supposedly, Chuck viewed the Missing in Action films as a tribute to his brother, Wieland, who was killed in Vietnam.

The continuity error has to do with the amount of time that Braddock and his men spend in the camp. After Chuck is captured in 1972, the film inserts some footage of Ronald Reagan giving a speech about the men who never returned from Vietnam. A narrator says that the Americans are still wondering what happened to the thousands of soldiers who were reported as being MIA in Vietnam. The implication is that Chuck and company spent ten years in the POW Camp, which means that they escaped in 1982. Since it is said, in Missing in Action, that it has been ten years since Chuck escaped, that means that Missing in Action actually took place in 1992. But if Chuck and the boys escaped and returned to America in 1982 then why, in 1992, was everyone so convinced that all the POWs were released immediately after the Vietnam War?

Fortunately, Chuck Norris is so cool that it doesn’t matter what year it is.

Chuck Norris, man.

Chuck Fucking Norris.