a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The problem with this film is that the performance of Donald Wolfitt points to him as the obvious suspect that it totally destroys any element of suspense.The ending is so ridiculous that it leaves you feeling cheated.William Hartnell is entertaining as the ex con.Herbert Lom plays a crooked solicitor who seems to be playing in a different film from Wolfitt.

First of all I must say I love this film. I remember watching it about 30 years ago, and I recall enjoying it a lot.Some people will say the Ringer is predictable I would beg to differ slightly, I would say that its predictability adds to its unpredictably if that makes sense!It's a fairly short film which suits me with my diminishing concentration levels, great acting, Herbert Lom playing a typical bad guy, a young Denholm Elliott and William Hartnell playing a cheeky cockney villain.I for one think its great entertainment, bought a copy from Amazon and have watched it twice in 3 days. Marvellous ending by the way. Enjoy itNick

Ever watch a mystery movie and spot the murderer right away? Well, if you watch "The Ringer" you should spot the murderer, oh, about half a minute after the opening credits. It promises to be a better-than-average mystery with Herbert Lom leading the cast, but almost immediately Donald Wolfit dominates the picture as a forensic expert from out of town - namely, somewhere in Scotland. Every scene he is in fixes on him sooner or later, and it soon becomes very obvious ...The movie is static and takes place mostly in Lom's office. He is an enemy of 'The Ringer', a notorious criminal, and it is discovered that The Ringer is in the vicinity to settle a score with lawyer Lom. Then the picture slogs along to its inevitable conclusion. You will have it figured out way ahead of time, but, of course, Scotland Yard does not.The saving grace with the print I saw (Columbus,O. Cinevent) was that it had 2 endings, one for British audiences and one for us in America, and they were run one after the other at the end. I thought that was a novel twist but it could not save a movie that was both tedious and predictable.

It is curious when one recalls a mood in a movie, and one or two moments that seem to raise it above the average. Such was the case of THE RINGER which I saw over 20 years ago on Channel 9 in New York. One summer, for the entire month of August, Channel 9 just ran British films. Many were very effective crime dramas or mysteries, like John Mills' MR. DENNING DRIVES NORTH (which I reviewed some time ago). This one, from the little I recall seeing, was intriguing and probably well worth watching.Herbert Lom is up to his usual "low" activities: He is a solicitor who has made a pot of money, at the expense of his clients. So he has many, many enemies out there. One of them has started sending him small threatening notes, and the police are called in to protect him. Problem is, he is such a despicable type even the police are not that happy about helping him.Among the police who are keeping an eye on him is a police psychiatrist named Dr. Lomond, played by Donald Wolfit. And here was one of the two delights of the film (the other being watching Mr. Lom go through his normal low paces). Donald Wolfit was one of the great stage actors of the 1910 - 1950 period in England, but he has been forgotten today. Although he was admired for many of his Shakespearean performances, he was of the old theatrical manager tradition like Sir Henry Irving or Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson. This tradition was being replaced by a more natural acting style practiced by Olivier, Guilgud, Redgrave, Guiness, Richardson, Ashcroft, Evans, and Thorndyke. Not that the latter could not blunder or bluster on occasion, but they distinctly toned down the histrionics. Wolfit did the reverse - so that when watching his filmed performances today one has to admit he can be very, very florid at times (such as in his 1954 SVENGALI). But when he made an effort to control his proclivities for chewing scenery he was very, very good. His Dr. Lomond is one of those attempts. The psychologist keeps restoring a degree of calm and rationality to the proceedings of the police and Lom regarding the unknown threat to the latter. So that the audience welcomes his comments and behavior - although as the film progresses an issue arises: just who is Dr. Lomond anyway? You see, it becomes known to Mai Zetterling (Lom's girlfriend) that Lomond's police credentials seem to be flawed. Who exactly is he?It becomes a game of "cat and mouse" between the arrogant, but suspicious Lom, and the quiet and patient Wolfit. I can only add that when the moment comes for the final confrontation it really is a memorable shocker. It was a clever film, and I wish my memories were sharper about it. But I am aware...from what little I recall of it, the film was certainly deserving a rating of "6" - and probably should get one higher.