I waited many years to see this film that had been given new life by a reassessment of the film noir period. "Night and the City" became one of those must-see films which was difficult to catch through normal channels. Luckily, NetFlix recently added it to their list of streaming films and I was overjoyed by the prospect of screening this film. However, as I watched "Night and the City," a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach told me something was amiss. Did I have the wrong film? Was the hyper overplayed about this little B&W ditty? Was this film as mediocre as I was making it out be? Well, I did have the right film, but my suspicions were correct in the other two areas. "Night and the City" has some redeeming graces such as excellent photography and some very good performances. But the film's story is pure B-picture hokem. Although it has been "revisited" by the film noir crowd, I think the New York Times original review of the film still stands"
Bosley Crowther in The New York Times: "Dassin's evident talent has been spent upon a pointless, trashy yarn, and the best that he has accomplished is a turgid pictorial grotesque...he tried to bluff it with a very poor script—and failed...the screenplay is without any real dramatic virtue, reason or valid story-line...little more than a melange of maggoty episodes having to do with the devious endeavors of a cheap London night-club tout to corner the wrestling racket—an ambition in which he fails. And there is only one character in it for whom a decent, respectable person can give a hoot."
I agree completely with this assessment, in fact, I labored to sit through the entire film. It's simply a waste of good direction, acting and atmosphere thrown away on a pointless story. I appreciate the efforts of recent critics to restore the prominence of little films important in the development of the cinema, but this little film noir "gem" is in actuality, a faux stone. One is tempted to make comparisions between it and "The Third Man" (for atmospherics) but "The Third Man" was scripted by the brilliant Graham Greene, while "Night and the City" is more reminiscent of a desperate Bowery Boys plot line than Mr. Greene's thoughtful entertainments.
Bosley Crowther in The New York Times: "Dassin's evident talent has been spent upon a pointless, trashy yarn, and the best that he has accomplished is a turgid pictorial grotesque...he tried to bluff it with a very poor script—and failed...the screenplay is without any real dramatic virtue, reason or valid story-line...little more than a melange of maggoty episodes having to do with the devious endeavors of a cheap London night-club tout to corner the wrestling racket—an ambition in which he fails. And there is only one character in it for whom a decent, respectable person can give a hoot."
I agree completely with this assessment, in fact, I labored to sit through the entire film. It's simply a waste of good direction, acting and atmosphere thrown away on a pointless story. I appreciate the efforts of recent critics to restore the prominence of little films important in the development of the cinema, but this little film noir "gem" is in actuality, a faux stone. One is tempted to make comparisions between it and "The Third Man" (for atmospherics) but "The Third Man" was scripted by the brilliant Graham Greene, while "Night and the City" is more reminiscent of a desperate Bowery Boys plot line than Mr. Greene's thoughtful entertainments.