They Came to a City (1944) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
City on the Edge of Forever
richardchatten18 February 2024
The main title actually says 'J. B. Priestley's They Came to a City', and the film constitutes the second of three brief wartime flirtations with fantasy by Ealing Studios.

Coming late in the war when enlightened opinion was already contemplating what was to come next, the ideals it expressed had already found voice in the Boulting Brothers short 'Dawn Guard' and thematically owed a lot to Sutton Vane's 'Outward Bound', James Hilton's 'Lost Horizon' and Priestley's own 1937 fantasy 'I Have Been Here Before'; while the striking production design seems to show the influence of German silent cinema.

Beginning and ending with the genial figure of Mr Priestley ambling on and off, it's not for all tastes, but is certainly quite unlike any other British film before or after.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Every time we go to Tewksbury it's fuss, fuss, fuss"
hwgrayson2 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
More of a polemic than an entertainment, based upon J. B. Priestley's stage play, it has it's moments of emotional drama but the message (which you can take or leave) outweighs everything else. The cast do a good job but ultimately they are mouthpieces for the politics. Standing out for me was Googie Withers as the reluctant barmaid, revealing under her feisty exterior a deep heart and soul. She was excellent. It is entirely shot in the studio and the sparse look of the sets probably reflect the film's stage origins. Wisely the actual ideal city itself is not shown, leaving it to the viewer's imagination. The music sourced from Scriabin was effectively used. Would not say I enjoyed the film but it is worth seeing. Mainly for Ms. Withers.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Will We Stay?
torrascotia18 February 2024
This is a very unusual film as its a 1940s surrealist one made by Ealing Studios and is simply unknown by the majority of the public. Trust Talking Pictures TV to bring it back to the public consciousness in 2024.

I was attracted to this film as I have a soft spot for old movies which have an air of the surreal, as its always interesting to see how fantasy elements are executed without the crux of CGI and computing power. A great example of a film that does this well is A Matter Of Life And Death.

The current film however is not on the same level, as it has less of the fantasy elements of Life And Death. It is basically a film about nine individuals from the social ranks of British society who are granted the opportunity to enter into a Utopian ideal city. The majority of the film is each character voicing their reasons of whether they have decided to stay in this city or return back to the previous lives. Where the movie falls flat is that its basically a communist propaganda reel in which the haves are evil and the have nots are virtuous. The problem with the author of this story is nobody seems to have told him that Utopia's simply don't work. People being as they are, so the entire notion of people deciding on whether to stay is irrelevant. To argue that point doesn't matter because its a movie makes no sense, because the film is an obvious social commentary. Of course its the bad people who don't want anything to do with the Utopia and the good people who do. More propaganda. But unless the author can come up with the magical way that an entire city can run where everybody is happy all the time and there are no problems because everyone works together, its a moot point to pour disdain on people who would refuse to live there. Maybe its because they know its all an unobtainable fantasy. The far left have always had this fantasy of a Utopia which they think would happen if everybody did what they said, and this movie is a great example of such flawed and simplistic reasoning. Its obvious from the ratings that many people either found this boring or recoiled at the communist slant of the narrative. Its an interesting watch for how strange it is, its simply not a great movie and its political angle comes across as extremely naive, maybe the collapse of communist societies hadn't happened yet.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Radiant Googie Withers
drednm7 August 2014
THEY CAME TO A CITY is based on a play by J.B. Preistley and stars Googie Withers and John Clements. It's sort of an "Outward Bound" story of disparate people who find themselves on a road that leads to a monolithic waiting room before a giant door. While waiting, each person explains his/her life, hopes, gripes, etc. When the door finally opens they descend in "the city." We never see it. As they emerge from the city, some are struck by the new social order, happiness of the people, the freedom, etc. while others are repelled by what they see. This utopia seems based on socialist views.

Coming toward the end of WWII, the story is framed by a couple sitting by a roadside overlooking a manufacturing city. They are arguing about what kind of world will emerge after the war. Will things be different. A man wanders by (J.B. Priestley himself) and he joins in, telling the story of his utopia.

Those who hate "the city" include a selfish dowager who browbeats her mousy daughter, a man of the landed gentry who lives on inherited money, a ruthless industrialist who makes money in order to make more money, and a jealous wife who hates anyone to has the things she wants. Those who like the city include the mousy daughter, an old charwoman, the henpecked husband, the world-weary barmaid (Withers), and the stoker (Clements) who has searched the world for a paradise.

While not very cinematic, the overall idea is quite interesting, and the actors (mostly from the stage play) are quite good. Besides Withers and Clements, the film co-stars Raymond Huntley and Renee Gadd as the Strittons, Ada Reeve as the charwoman, Mabel Terry-Lewis and Frances Rowe as the dowager and daughter, A.E. Matthews as the industrialist, Norman Shelley as the landed gentry.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Intriguing And (Probably) Overambitious
keithhmessenger25 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
British director Basil Dearden's 1944 film version of J B Priestley's play of the same name is a rather original 'philosophical tract' on post WW2 British reconstruction. As a group of (nine) strangers find themselves adrift, but coming together, in an artificial (almost A Matter of Life and Death-like) heavenly construction overseeing a 'city', Priestley (and co-writer Dearden) attempt to give us a representative microcosm of 1940s Britain (waitress, businessman, sailor, cleaner, bank manager, member of the aristocracy, etc.) split roughly, and particularly relevantly for the time, along class lines. We then get quite a wide-ranging discussion encompassing a range of issues, including mortality, marriage, fidelity, sexual politics, artifice, religion, catharsis, etc, but which, in line with Priestley's world view, essentially boils down to a debate on capitalism vs. Socialism in the context of Britain needing to 'rebuild' (and 'reform') itself post-war.

Such a premise may sound a little dry and, to an extent, it is! Nevertheless, some of the characters here, particularly Googie Withers' (typically for the actress) exuberant waitress, Norman Shelley's blustering narrow-minded businessman, Raymond Huntley's wavering bank manager and Ada Reeve's elderly and life-experienced cleaner, bring Priestley's drama to emotional (and political) life. Having visited the 'utopian city' Dearden's cast is left with the dilemma - who wants to stay and who to go? Of course, the leavers are, perhaps predictably, the more narrow-minded (i.e. Those with vested interests in the status quo) of the bunch. The film therefore suffers from a curious mix of overambition (in the scope of the philosophical discussion) and predictable outcome. That said, it is particularly the roles of (the great) Googie Withers (whose stolen just about every film I've seen her in) and Reeve's perhaps unexpectedly sage words of wisdom that cut though some of the more preachy content here. Dearden's film was criticised at the time for being 'uncinematic' which it largely is, but other play-based films, for example Twelve Angry Mean and His Girl Friday, disprove this as a definitive criticism and it is rather They Came To a City's dry and esoteric subject matter that is its principal limiting factor. And on this latter subject I would certainly opt for I'm All Right Jack as a more effective and, of course, funnier depiction of a similar political spectrum.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nine strangers mysteriously transported to a unique city.
Xyler8529 April 2024
Nine disagreeable Britons representing different social/economic classes are mysteriously transported to a place with a door. As they wait for the door to open, we get to know them better. Eventually the door opens, and they go explore a city which the audience never sees. T The idea is that post WW2, England should become a more fair and equitable society with people who treat each other well. When the characters find themselves in such a city they have different reactions. It's interesting how some of the selfish ones try to emotionally drag those who want to live in the city back to their miserable lives. There is an episode involving a mother and daughter that is very similar to an episode in C. S. Lewis' novel "The Great Divorce" written 12 years later. It made me wonder if Mr. Lewis ever saw the film. Note: "They Came To A City" is similar to watching a stage play. At only 66 minutes long it's worth a look.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Inspiring but unconvincing.
mwstone-702-79494022 February 2024
Lovely piece about assorted people who discovered a happy land far far away - and some found it happier than others. But as noted elsewhere, the Utopia is portrayed without any explanation of how we got there. As another reviewer says, it captured the mood of the times. That mood produced the Attlee government - and after six years of it, it took another 13 before Labour got in again - and Harold Wilson had the sense not to promise Utopia. Unfortunately, The comparison with Lost Horizon is very apt, but Shangri-La doesn't work without it's supernatural elements - which unfortunately we don't possess.,
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Shangri La is not for everyone.
mark.waltz23 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This interesting fantasy drama based upon a play by J.B. Priestley (who acts as the film's narrator) is a view of a hopeful new world for some and a nightmare for others. An eclectic group of strangers head on a train to a location of which they are most likely unsure. Their final destination looks like a mountaintop castle with a door that is barred to them. Unexpectedly, one of them noticed a city seemingly miles below their location, and it soon becomes obvious that some of them fear entering the city and refuse to make their way through the door when it finally opens. Arguments arise as to why they should go or stay, and it soon becomes transparent that this is not just an ordinary city, but a final destination.

The message behind the Priestley play will be different to everybody as this is a thinking man's fantasy, a mixture of ethical, spiritual, political and personal beliefs, based upon class, ambition, greed and humanity. John Clements and Googie Withers headline the cast as a rebellious young man (unsure of what he's rebelling against and why) and a very tired barmaid, more than ready for a rest. Uppity Mabel Terry-Lewis and her daughter Fanny Rowe don't see eye to eye on entering the city, while two stuffy businessmen and a plain talking charwoman offer other theories of why to stay or go.

Yes, this does come off a bit like a filmed staged play, what is lucious to look at, with the type of art direction that would be later seen in "Stairway To Heaven". It is literary and profound, an excercise in philosophy that some viewers may be put off by. However, the acting is top notch, each characterization an interesting view of the different levels of humanity, and an opening to all sorts of conversation. This may be ripe for an art house revival, because at least there it might find the type of audience to truly appreciate it.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
talk talk talk
malcolmgsw26 February 2011
Ealing has a reputation for some fine comedies and dramas but alas this is not one of them.It is difficult to know what possessed Michael Balcon to produce this film adaptation of J B Priestleys play.It is really a polemic a social tract not an entertainment and it is little surprise that this film was a disaster at the box office.You could shut your eyes throughout the film,and assuming that you did not fall asleep,you would not miss any of the action.I believe that this must be one of the most boring films ever made by the British film industry.It seems to be calling for an ideal and idealistic world which was probably fine in 1944 but which was not borne out by what happened in the post war world.Whatever you do avoid this film unless you want to suffer terminal boredom.
17 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
How tastes differ!
ben-gosling194410 March 2015
I usually enjoy malcolmgsw's reviews but this time we have to agree to differ: I consider this, far from being the worst British film, rather amongst the best. Of course, it depends upon what one considers important, how one views our history and the changes in politics. Not long ago, millions of Brits had a vision of a better and more just way of managing things and hopes for a better life for all. This film may have helped the Attlee government gain power the next year, but now all is lost and gone since Clause 4 was thrown out in 1995. The present generation is unhappy but doesn't seem interested in the hopes which this film is concerned with. The acting and the lighting effects are powerful, so it really wouldn't do to sit with one's eyes shut. Of course, if you're hoping for light entertainment and giggles, this film is not for you. It ought to be mentioned that the verse of poetry is taken slightly out of context: 'I dreamed that was the new city of Friends' with a capital 'F', meaning Quakers. It was about the hopes for the founding of Philadelphia in 1681. When a child, Walt Whitman was deeply influenced by a powerful Quaker preacher, and it shows in verses such as this. I can't imagine Whitman would mind his words being applied to this story.
30 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
They Came to a City
henry8-320 February 2024
Based on J. B. Priestley's play, 9 characters from wildly different social backgrounds disappear into the dark one night and arrive at a vast structure which has an entrance to a new, never seen, city. Each of the 9 enter and then decide whether this apparent Utopia is for them or not.

Strange, wordy piece making little attempt to hide its stage origins. This was intended to look at Britain towards the end of the war and how as a society it was to land in its feet. Regrettably, Priestly, who appears briefly, clearly has decided which characters and classes are the good guys and which are the bad. So whilst there are certainly some interesting characters and ideas here, this rather didactic lecture makes it clear that the hard working, poorer and the left wing seeking the searches for Utopia are all right and the right wing are all upper class idiots frightened of change and only interested in money. It's all far too black and white with too many cliched characters and political speeches, particularly by free thinking revolutionary Dinmore played by John Clements who cries for change eloquently whilst the upper classes mumble and moan. It's a pity, because it's a fun idea and with a gentler touch and perhaps more ambiguity it could have been more interesting than it is. An intriguing but not wholly successful cinema oddity.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A view of society in England.
plan9922 February 2024
Not exactly highly entertaining but it's not supposed to be entertaining as it's a comparison of posh rich people to poor ones.

Unsurprisingly the rich posh ones are not keen on a society where all are equal so the privileged positions that they currently enjoy would be lost. Eighty years later and nothing has changed as the rich continue to get richer and the poor get poorer.

My favourite character was the washerwoman who held the film together with her comments.

The set must have been very cheap to construct as it seemed to have been made of plywood painter to resemble stone.

Worth a watch but don't expect any excitement like a car chase for example.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Pure Utopian Propaganda - LOVED EVERY SECOND!!!
kobsidian26 February 2024
A very pleasant surprise. This is an allegory about an imagined socialist paradise, and the judgements that various archetypical citizens would have of it. I Loved it.

It happens that I watched this - on FUBI - on the same night that I watched a documentary about Jane Jacobs, the sociologist of cities and advocate of bottom-up community building. This was a perfect follow up.

It's presented as a series of exchanges between the disparate characters, contrasting their values, experience and social orientation. While it could be criticized as didactic and predictable, I found it well executed and fun. I especially loved Googie Withers as the working class gal whose been around the block a few times but isn't ready to go cynical.

In tone and flavor it's like a blend of Capra with Powell & Pressburger.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed