Why the film starred a lot of Americans in a film set in London, I don't know, but I assume that because it was financed by Americans they demanded the likes of Richard Widmark and Gene Tierney in the movie. They were all wrong for the film but despite this miscasting the movie was exceptional from start to finish.

Widmark stars as Harry Fabian--a small-time crook who is always scheming and failing. He's a total loser who always has an illegal or semi-legal plan to 'make it big'. The problem, however, is that practically everyone knows he's a two-bit loser--a punk who will never amount to anything. Well, when I say everyone, there actually is one glaring exception--Harry himself! Yet, despite having no chance to make it, Harry keeps trying--hoping against hope to be rich and respected...even though he is just a low-class rat. This character is really exciting to watch, as he's one of the weaseliest characters in film--and very interestingly portrayed.

Part-way through the film, Harry hits on a scheme that might actually work this time. But, considering his track record, don't believe it! Through his usual lies and half-truths, he's met and ingratiated himself with an ex-professional wrestler who is looking for a match for his young protégé. Harry convinces them that he loves the sport and can arrange such a match--though he knows absolutely nothing about the business. Along the way towards this match, Harry rubs several people wrong and you assume sooner or later he'll get what's coming to him. What this is and whether or not it will be fatal is anyone's guess.

While I don't want to give away any of the plot, the climactic wrestling scene is amazing--brutal, tension-filled and exciting. I found myself moving in my seat and tensing up during the match--it was so expertly done--and one of the best scenes I've watched in recent months in any film.

The film, while not strictly film noir, is very, very noir-like due to the lovely direction (by Jules Dassin),cinematography, script and music. Perhaps some might just consider it noir--it has many of the proper elements and style. But, being made in the UK and not focused a on robbery or murder makes it hard to categorize as a prime example of the genre. Still, it was made so well--it would be a great film for young film makers to view to understand more about the basics of a great movie. Top-notch in every way.

By the way, here are two final observations. First, Gene Tierney gets second billing but is barely in the film. Second, the old wrestler from Greece who fights the impromptu match near the end was about 71 in the scene!! That's amazing for a guy who should be way too old for that sort of exertion!

Love classic film and there are many classic examples of "film noir"/crime dramas and thrillers, that are too numerous to list actually. Richard Widmark, here in an early role (his seventh film in fact),gave a lot of fine performances, excelling as villains and anti-heroes, and the supporting cast consisting of Gene Tierney, Googie Withers, Francis L. Sullivan and Herbert Lom are a strong one. Have not seen anywhere near enough of Jules Dassin's work, but fully intend to at some point after watching 'Night and the City'.

Haven't called a film or anything film-related sublime in a while, but 'Night and the City' deserves it and deserves much more credit than it does, despite the vast amount of praise given here. Cannot believe that it took me so long to see 'Night and the City', or that it was completely unknown to me until it appeared as a recommendation here, having seen a fair share of crime dramas recently. Tierney's underuse is my sole issue, but that is nowhere near big enough a flaw to bring the film down significantly because everything else is so fantastically done and Tierney regardless is still credible.

One of the biggest strengths of 'Night and the City' is Widmark, who is just brilliant in a role perfect for him, enhanced by an intensely moving performance. He is supported just as adeptly by the rest of the cast, Sullivan is a strong presence and a menacing Lom likewise. Withers does desperation and manipulation extremely well.

This perhaps couldn't be possible without director Dassin, though Widmark was a rarely less than reliable presence regardless of who directed or the quality of the film, yet Dassin is a major reason as to why 'Night and the City' works so well. Dassin is highly successful in creating an authentic, audacious and unsettling visual style. The photography is just beautiful to look at and is a big reason as to why the use of entirely London locations in 'Night and the City' was so clever. He is equally successful at keeping the story at a controlled, yet never in my mind mannered or tedious, way that sustains the subtly tense and movingly desperate tone beautifully. The momentum didn't stop to me, but that may not be the case for others. The music avoids being overwrought yet stirs the emotions.

Script is controlled yet taut and the characterisations made interesting but that is largely down to the acting being as good as it is.

Overall, sublime. 10/10

It's a film set among night people in a London still struggling to get on its feet after the war. There's a lot of location shooting and attention to detail in showing the world the characters live in: characters put flowers in their lapels but live in draughty rooms, a nightclub tries to look classy but has beggars and alcoholics buzzing around it, the neon lights are shining again in the West End but it isn't very far to whole city blocks where nearly a decade after the Blitz the rubble has still to be cleared.

When the scene is set so well, it's entirely believable to come across characters who are desperate to escape from their lives, and it doesn't take a lot of explicit violence to be aware that there are a lot of people here who would cut your throat for tuppence ha'penny, let alone a thousand quid, or is that a thousand quids (one of the fun parts of the film is listening to American actors use British slang).

In fact the milieu is drawn so well that not only does it bring you into the movie but it sometimes becomes more interesting than the movie itself. For example one of the characters is a craggy old-time wrestler who is played by a real-life craggy old-time wrestler in his only acting role. He has a fight whose outcome is essential to the plot but where the irresitible forces and immovable objects in human form are so fascinating that when we see the reaction of the other characters, they're partly reacting as their characters would react and it's partly as if the actors have stepped out of the movie for two minutes and are reacting to the scene with the audience.