Abner Procane hires Raymond St. Ives, a crime reporter and ex-policeman, to return five ledgers stolen from his safe. St. Ives becomes embroiled in the task and the deaths of those involved in the theft. The ledgers are eventually returned minus four pages, and St. Ives is drawn into robbery to try and right the situation.
The novel The Procane Chronicle was published in 1972 written by Ross Thomas under the pen name "Oliver Bleeck". The New York Times said "it should find ready acceptance among readers who like sophistication amid the welter." Film rights were bought in 1972 by Warner Bros who announced it would be made by director Dick Richards as the first of a two-picture deal.
Reception
The film's box office performance was described as "modest". It currently has a score of 38% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 8 reviews. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 2 stars out of 4 and called it "an ambitious Charles Bronson picture that looks good but finally doesn't quite work. It's got atmosphere, an interesting cast and some nice action scenes. But it bogs down in those speculations that are the bane of all crime mysteries." Richard Eder of The New York Times wrote a modest recommendation, stating that the film "takes itself neither too seriously nor too lightly. Its occasional wit avoids heavy parody; its action avoids heavy reliance on violence, car chases and other such mechanical paraphernalia... manages a pleasantly tried skepticism while the bodies fall all around." Arthur D. Murphy of Variety wrote that the film "merely confirms a point: Eliminate gratuitous, offensive and overdone violence from a dull and plodding film story, and all you've got left is a dull and plodding film." Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film 1.5 stars out of 4 and wrote, "The pace of the film is as lethargic as the acting." He added, "'St. Ives' is the kind of picture that introduces critical off-camera incidents at will. It's a mystery that doesn't play fair. It is neither possible to solve nor worth trying." Charles Champlin of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film "is what the trade calls a Charles Bronson starrer. It is also what the trade calls a program picture, competent, familiar and uninspired." Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote that the film was "easy enough to string along with in an undemanding mood," though "Charles Bronson never seems remotely plausible as the sort of literary Shamus Raymond St. Ives is purported to be."
