The Ring (1927) Poster

(I) (1927)

User Reviews

Review this title
52 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
good early effort from Hitchcock
km_dickson6 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Hitchcock shows early promise
tomgillespie200219 March 2011
Alfred Hitchcock's only screen writing credit follows the story of two aspiring boxers as they slowly work their way to the top of their game. 'One-Round' Jack (Carl Brisson) works in a carnival show, using the gimmick of being able to knock any challengers out in one round to draw the crowds. When onlooker Bob Corby is reluctantly talked into going a round with Jack, he knocks him out, much to Jack's dismay and surprise. Caught between the two fighters is Jack's girlfriend Mabel (Lilian Hall Davis) who takes a liking to Bob, especially as he begins his rise up the boxing ranks. As Jack's frustration and jealousy grows, so does his success. As the two fight their way to the top, the likelihood of a climatic bout between the two protagonists increases with every fight. Ultimately it becomes a mental and physical battle for the love of Mabel.

The meaning of the title is multi-layered - of course referring the boxing ring, but also the arm bracelet that Mabel receives from Bob that comes to represent the everlasting loop that the three lead characters are caught up in. Although relatively little-seen compared to some of the popular boxing movies, Hitchcock's silent has undoubtedly had a great impact of the sport genre, especially on Scorsese's Raging Bull. Hitchcock was fascinated with boxing - the idea of a physical and mental duel between two gladiators, and also with the dirty feel of the arena. Halls would be filled by both smartly-dressed socialites, and the working-class looking for a bit of escapism. The place would be filled with cigarette smoke, sweat and dirt trampled in by the masses. Although this doesn't quite have the cinematic flair of Scorsese's masterpiece, the photography is clearly comparable, and is extremely impressive given its era. This is Hitchcock's early experiment, where he would develop techniques he would come to perfect in his long-list of truly great films. A fascinating film from the man that would become one of the giants of cinema.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
My brief review of the film
sol-20 August 2005
The story here is very slight, but it is told well by Hitchcock, with excellent choices of lighting and distances and a number of neat tricks. The editing is excellent, with dissolves effectively used throughout, and the simple cuts are perfectly timed. There is some clever image distortion, superb photography in general, and the film even manages to include some apt comedy relief, thanks largely to Gordon Harker's comic acting abilities. There is a dream sequences that is arguably poorly handled, and the story is downright predictable, but generally it is hard to hold anything against this early Hitchcock silent film.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3, 2, 1...out!
gnb23 September 2002
"The Ring" is, for me, Hitchcock's best silent feature. It is a nippy little romance which sprints along with a surprisingly swift pace.

There's the typical early Hitch experimentation - the camera getting "knocked out" in a boxing scene is a prime example and some fine comedic moments in what is otherwise a pretty serious story of love and betrayal although, with the boxing backdrop, the rather mundane story is slightly more exciting.

Less gimicky than the more famous "The Lodger", and therefore more believable, "The Ring" is an underrated, early effort from the man who went on to become one of the most celebrated directors in the world.

NB. Catch hold of the BFI release of this video if you can - the score is superb and by far the best new music I have heard composed for a silent movie.
24 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Ring As Triangle.
rmax30482323 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Ian Hunter was later to be King Richard the Lionheart in Errol Flynn's "The Adventures of Robin Hood." Here, he's the heavyweight champion. Just for the heck of it, and because he was taunted by the girl (Hall Davis) who takes tickets, he gets into the ring with "One Round" Jack (Brisson), a carnival nobody who makes a meager living fighting all comers. The ticket-taking young lady is Brisson's girl friend.

Hunter decks Brisson, as is expected, but the bout forms a certain bond between them. Hunter's win also attracts the attention of Hall Davis. Gee, a genuine champion! Hunter slips her a bracelet bought with his winnings from the bout.

Brisson then finds a manager and begins professional boxing. He marries Hall Davis in a comic scene. Hitchcock handles the scene with some deftness. An insert shows us Brisson's hand slipping the wedding ring onto Hall Davis's finger, but the bracelet from Hunter slides down her arm and confuses the simple event.

Brisson works his way up to the top and finally wins the match that will get him a title shot against Hunter. He returns home to find his pals ready to celebrate with him -- but no wife. She's out schtupping Hunter. The champagne goes flat while everyone waits for her return. One by one, the Brisson's glum buddies take their leave. Brisson has by the time caught on to the situation. When Hall Davis finally returns there is an angry exchange and Hall Davis leaves him, feeling insulted.

The night of the big fight arrives and it's exhausting. Brisson takes a pounding from Hunter. Just when it seems he can't get through another round, guess what happens. Hall Davis arrives, changes her mind, and rushes to Brisson to tell him, "I'm in YOUR corner, Jack!" That signal Hunter's KO. Happy ending.

It's a bit slow and torpid at the start but after twenty minutes or so, I found myself caring what happened to the characters. They're pretty well written. Hunter isn't an evil guy, just careless about the feelings of others and used to having any girl he has a yen for. Brisson is the obvious and oblivious protagonist, good natured, committed, naive. Hall Davis is flighty and adulterous but turns out all right in the end.

Hitchcock plays some tricks with the camera and seems to enjoy experimenting with the device. We see the world hazy and shimmering through the eyes of a drunken man. It's even worse when we get the POV of Brisson after he's been skinned alive in the ring. One of the camera's capers is unusual. At the bottom of the screen a man's hands are playing the keys of a piano, but the keys extend blurrily all the way up to the top of the screen.

It's not a great movie. Love triangles are common and the end is formulaic. Nor is the acting outstanding. I'm not sure what would constitute an outstanding performance in a silent movie, disregarding makeup.

You'll probably stay awake through it, but it's not worth repeated viewings.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Hitchcock fans might be surprised at this type of film, but it's worth seeing.
planktonrules27 July 2009
'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A rare Hitchcock sports movie about a love triangle
jennyhor200421 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
An early triumph for the young Alfred Hitchcock, released in the same year as his better known "The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog", the boxing film "The Ring" deserves its own accolade as one of his more technically accomplished films from the silent movie era. Already the film features much symbolism in its name alone: there is the obvious reference to the boxing ring but the title also refers to a wedding ring, a bracelet and the love triangle that is the movie's heart. Themes familiar to Hitchcock fans are not so much in evidence here and the major attractions lie in Hitchcock's increasingly confident use of editing, montage, the camera as voyeur and development of character through action and emotion.

Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) works his way up as a boxer from fighting amateurs at country fairs to professional level. His main ambition is to succeed at boxing and earn enough money to marry the cashier Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis). However Mabel meets another boxer, Bob Corby (Ian Hunter), and falls in love with him. As Sander wins his bouts, he marries Mabel and continues to fight but gradually discovers his wife is still attracted to Bob. He vows to keep on fighting to a level where he can seriously challenge Corby. Eventually the match is arranged and everyone in town turns up to watch the match. Can Gander beat Corby and win back Mabel? Who will Mabel choose?

The story is hokey in its details but Hitchcock was more interested in the love triangle and the characterisation of Mabel, the most developed character, than in portraying boxing as a career in the 1920s. It's a given in many of Hitchcock's films that the main female character should be the most complex of the cast, no matter what the plot, and "The Ring" is no different here. Mabel is torn between the shallow, fun-loving life-style that Corby as an established professional boxer can offer her and the plainer, down-to-earth and genuine life that is Jack's to give. The inner conflict that Mabel experiences is most vividly expressed in the climactic boxing scene where she is seen racing from Corby's side to Jack's side and back again. Hall Davis is quite effective as Mabel and has a lovely beauty in several shots. Unfortunately her career in films was short-lived; the arrival of talkies cut short her success and she committed suicide in 1933. Brisson brings to his role an imposing physical presence and height, and experience as an amateur boxer; he's not much of an actor but he has a frank and open sincerity that makes him perfect as a wronged man. Ian Hunter as Corby hasn't much to do apart from playing suave and seductive; he was to have a long film career that lasted nearly 40 years.

The film shows German Expressionist influences in a number of scenes and although the plot can be quite involved, it is skilfully relayed so as to rely on very few titles cards and the flow of the narrative is not disrupted as a result. Throughout his career, Hitchcock never forgot his roots in silent film and a number of his later movies, even famous ones made in the late 1950s and early 1960s like "Vertigo", "North by Northwest" and "Psycho", feature extended scenes where nothing is said. The boxing scene where Sander and Corby settle their differences once and for all uses clever edits and a dream-like sequence simulating the effect of slight concussion to draw out and heighten the inner and outer conflicts of the two men: they are fighting not only for their reputations and careers, they are fighting for the love of a woman. There are scenes throughout the film where the camera is used as a voyeuristic device that lets us see how the rivalry between Sander and Corby develops and escalates.

It is a slow film in its first half and doesn't accumulate pace and tension until Mabel's adultery with Corby becomes overt and Sander's anger at her betrayal threatens to get the better of him. Minor characters such as Sander's trainer provide light relief and pause in the tension. Overall "The Ring" is recommended to Hitchcock fans to see how their favourite director was refining his signature style.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun With Circular Objects
slokes28 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The fact this is Alfred Hitchcock's one sports movie may, along with it being a silent film, may put some Hitch fans off. That's too bad, because "The Ring" presents a solid blend of romantic intrigue and comedy that shows the young director beginning to master his craft. Whatever your interest in the Master going in, it's worth a view.

"One Round" Jack Sadler makes a decent living as a fairground pugilist, his gimmick being if a customer can last a round with him, they get a prize. Few enough do so that Sadler can plan on marrying his sweetheart Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davies), the ring's ticket collector. But he's about to get a rude awakening when the big time comes calling, in the form of Australian heavyweight champ Bob Corby (Ian Hunter), who likes Sadler's style but likes Mabel even more.

Hitchcock makes you feel the sweat and sawdust of the fair in setting up the opening scene. He also does a clever thing with introducing Corby, as someone who looks out of place and is apparently gulled into facing One-Round by Mabel's coy glances and come-hither gestures. You actually worry for the guy, until you and One-Round get the first of many surprises in this crafty movie.

The title of the film means several things, including the boxing ring, One-Round's wedding ring, and an arm bracelet that Corby gives to Mabel for which she shows much affection. There's also a ring of cards, a spinning record, glasses of champagne, and a horseshoe that falls on a fortune teller's head, angering her to throw up some early sparks. Hitch has a lot of fun playing with these and other optics, like point-of-view shots of besotted partiers.

He also gets a great performance from Brisson, who doesn't overact nearly as much as he did in Hitchcock's later "The Manxman" but instead plays his scenes with a balance of sympathetic hurt and anger, not to mention the natural physical gifts of a real-life boxer. He projects a quality of amiable menace that moves us into his corner against the sly Corby, whom Hunter underplays very well. When we see Mabel and One-Round marry, there's a quick cut to Corby letting out a yawn that tells us everything we need to know about the character. Mabel may care for him, but the feeling is only returned in a casual, opportunistic way.

The major weakness is Mabel. Hall-Davies does solid work with what she's given, but it's hard to care for someone as fickle as she. To the extent we do, it's because One-Round's happiness is tied exclusively to her affections. I wish the script, Hitch's only solo effort in his film career, did more with the ambiguity of her character. Designing women were a forte of Hitchcock's, but later on.

Still, this is a classy, fast-moving picture that gives us much flavor for the period and the sweet science in grittier days. You get plenty of fun moments, many of them from Gordon Harker as One-Round's dogged, grubby trainer. He serves a thematic purpose, too. When we see him as best man at the wedding, picking his nose before handing the minister the ring, you have to wonder who would want to touch that thing. Something of that sordidness carries through the rest of the film.

The climax won't surprise many, but it's still great entertainment, delivered with a visceral quality that puts you in the ring with One- Round in the fight of his life. Like jennyhor2004 says in her September 2012 review, this is a film for Hitch fans to see their man crafting his "signature style," but even without the name on the title, "The Ring" makes for a worthy entry in the film canon, silent or otherwise. There are finer boxing films, even silent ones (Buster Keaton's "Battling Butler" for one), but "The Ring" stands up to the punches of time quite well.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I really wanted to like this one
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki15 August 2013
I really wanted to like this one, even watching it twice in the past week, thinking that it might grow on me (as Hitchcock's Number Seventeen has done, slightly) but it just doesn't do anything for me. Apparently, it didn't do much for the audiences in 1927 either, because from what I've been able to find out about it, despite being popular with critics, it sank at the box office.

Hitchcock not only directed but also wrote this boring melodrama, a combination of two of my least favourite genres: boxing, and romance. The world of boxing provides the backdrop for this formulaic triangle between two competitors and the girl who loves them both: but which man does she really want to marry?

The title is good, with several layered meanings in relation to the story. The fact that the film used few title cards was unique, letting visuals tell the story by themselves. There are a lot of clever visuals by Hitchcock: as we look up through the water of a pond at the two lovers; placing the ring on her finger at the marriage ceremony, only to have the bracelet slip down to her wrist, reminding her (and the audience) of the other man; girl, sitting on hubby's lap, glances across the room toward a mirror, and sees reflection of the "other man"; fingers flittering away on the ivories, distorted - but the plot, again written by Hitchcock himself, was a routine melodrama which could hardly hold my attention.

Beautiful, slightly Gothic looking church in which the ceremony occurs is an asset to the film in its few, brief scenes. Goofball comically blowing the suds off the beer, then downing it, and the film's subsequent distorted Point-Of-View shot is an amusing moment. Was this film, released October 1927, the first to use POV shots?
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rings...
JoeytheBrit7 January 2008
Hitchcock lifts what is essentially a routine love triangle story set against the boxing world by use of a visually inventive style that even then must have marked him out as one to watch. The story really is pretty meaningless, serving merely as a canvas upon which Hitch can experiment, unrestrained it seems from any interference from BIP. He distorts images on POV shots to communicate the emotions and state of mind of his characters, and uses symbolism to an unusually large degree. Those must have been heady days for Hitchcock, presented with a big malleable toy and seemingly given licence to do with it whatever he wished.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Something of a chore!
JohnHowardReid12 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A British International Picture, released in the U.K. through Wardour Films. Not copyrighted in the U.S.A., the film opened in New York on 24 December 1927. London trade show: October 1927. 112 minutes at correct speed. (Available on a 10/10 LaserLight DVD).

SYNOPSIS: Two professional boxers are in love with the same girl.

NOTES: "You might say that The Lodger was the first true Hitchcock movie. Well, The Ring was the second. No crime ingredients, but a really interesting movie. There were all sorts of innovations in it. The critics loved it, but it was not a commercial hit." — Alfred Hitchcock.

COMMENT: Dullsville. Admittedly, the climactic fight has a bit of zing, but it is way outclassed by dozens of fight films made subsequently, even though the principals do most of their own slugging. And such principals! Ian Hunter (who made a career of playing the good- mannered but dullsville "other suitor") is as ho- hum as ever, but Carl Brisson is likewise a bore. Gordon Harker, even at this early stage of his career, can't resist hamming up his role, while the support characters come across as little more than woeful caricatures.

True, the girl, the lovely Lillian Hall-Davis, makes a strong impression. And yes, there are some pleasing Hitchcockian touches but not enough to justify sitting through this film. Despite Miss Hall-Davis's pleasing performance and a fair-sized budget which allows Jack Cox some typically atmospheric cinematography, watching The Ring is something of a chore.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"One round Jack's finally met his match"
Steffi_P13 November 2007
The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.
35 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Less than the sum of its parts but still able to display that Hitchcock had skill early on
knoll36017 February 2011
The Ring is a silent film about a love story shaped around boxing. 'One Round' Jack Sander is in love with a woman named Mabel and the two of them decide to get married. Jack is a very skilled boxer but one day he loses a fight to a man named Bob Corby at which point Mabel also starts to fall for Bob. As Jack learns more and more about Mabel's affair he attempts to work his way back up to the top in a boxing tournament. And in the end he believes that the fight with Bob will determine Mabel's love. So it's actually a pretty decent story about love which surprisingly works very well with the boxing aspect of the film.

The acting is very good here with Carl Brisson doing an excellent job as Jack. He looks as concerned as anyone ever could about his wife and he truly looks motivated to make his way to the top in boxing. Ian Hunter does a great job as Bob, the rich boxer who also tries to get Mabel. Now Mabel is played by Lillian Hall-Davis who also happens to do a truly excellent job. All of the minor roles in the film are also catered to perfectly.

Each of the sets in the film are done pretty well with the carnival at the beginning and all of the boxing rings looking pretty realistic for the time. The hits between boxers are very good for the most part as it usually looks like they are actually making contact. The musical score for this film is one of the best that I've ever heard in a silent film and it truly leaves the viewer with a wide variety of emotions.

With all of the praise that I just rained upon this film you may think that I'm going to say go out and see this film immediately but in reality it feels like less than the sum of its parts. The story is very good while not perfect, the acting is excellent, the special effects are pretty good, and the music is truly stupendous. So not everything in the film is perfect but there really aren't that many noteworthy flaws. I'll say check out the film if you enjoy boxing, love stories, or Alfred Hitchcock. Score: 7/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Only watch if into silent flicks
mjb012319 March 2005
No, it's not the horror movie...This one is actually a love story.

The Ring is a silent film from 1927 that stars two boxers and the woman that comes between them. She loves the boxer known as "One Round" Jack. She loves him until the champion comes along, that is. Even though she marries One Round, she starts overtly flirting with the champion until the climactic final boxing fight between One Round and the champion. She comes back to One Round's corner, just when things look their bleakest, and he miraculously finds the inner strength to win the fight and win his wife love back.

This film was very early in Hitch's career, but the limitations of the time must not have made him make a lasting film. Although there are special film tricks, and some comedy relief, this film just does not hold up to any of his later work. It must have been extremely risqué for the time period though, with the shameless adulterous wife. That may have been the draw back in 1927. While looking through all of these old films, it is amazing how I think that they could be redone on today's screen and really come off. Maybe I should be the one....

Skip this movie unless you are planning on watching all of Hitchcock's films. You could fall asleep in the middle.
8 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hitchcock's Touches Give Life to a Conventional Story
Snow Leopard18 July 2001
It's basically just a love-triangle story, but Hitchcock's storytelling skills and mastery of silent film techniques make "The Ring" well worth watching. There is a lot of visual detail and symbolism that add meaning to a basically routine story about small-time boxer Jack, his girl, and the champion who gives Jack his big break but who also tries to steal his girl.

The opening sequence establishes the triangle amidst the colorful atmosphere of a traveling show, where Jack takes on all comers inside a tent. It is filled with a lot of detail, especially the bracelet that Bob, the champion, gives to Jack's girl, which is important as a plot element and as a symbol. (This "ring" is one of several meanings of the film's nicely-chosen title.) Most of the plot that follows is predictable, as it is clear from the beginning that someday Bob and Jack will have to square off in the ring with more than Bob's title at stake. But if the story is routine, Hitchcock's technique is not. There are a lot of creative touches that develop the characters and story, and that add humor and interest. The cast is pretty good, and some of the secondary characters from the traveling show are very funny in the earlier scenes.

This is certainly an old-fashioned movie, and won't be of general interest today, but it's a nice little film. Anyone who likes silent films or who wants to see something quite different from the "Master of Suspense" should find this worth a look.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"a friend of yours?" "a "very" great friend!!"
kidboots16 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token.

Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.

At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?

The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.

Highly Recommended.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Beware of women wearing snakes . . .
oscaralbert13 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
. . . or jewelry designed to resemble the slithering reptiles, such as the near-fatal bracelet worn by Lilian Hall Davis as "Mabel" in this steamy love triangle Silent Pic. I've watched THE RING twice, and Mabel seemed more sinister the second time around. No one wants to believe that a blonde can be born bad; it's much easier to just echo Adam's mate, Eve, and blame it on the snake. THE RING's boxing hero protagonist, Jack, is faced at every turn by the epitome of Evil, pugilist Bob, Mabel's seducer. From the moment Bob insinuates the snake bracelet onto her wrist, viewers have the feeling that this story will not have a happy ending. THE RING represents director Alfred Hitchcock at his best, before he got all Fancy Schmancy with red filters on a later version of a Femme Fatale, MARNIE. Lil Mainwaring, who played Sean Connery's would-be lover in that film, says that Hitchcock literally fingered her face to achieve the exact expression he wanted her to have when she looked out the window of her "adopted" mansion at Sean and Marnie (Tippi Hedren). Hitchcock, who started in the film business writing title cards, always wanted to manipulate his actresses to the maximum extent possible, and it was a big help to reduce Ms. Davis' utterances as "Mabel" here to title cards, rather than having to deal with her vocal inflections, had this film been a "talkie."
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An Early Hitchcock Classic!
Sylviastel10 September 2013
Sir Alfred Hitchcock was an absolute genius who knew what audiences wanted long before groups and screenings. This film is about a boxer, his girl, and the boxing world. One reviewer pointed out that he avoided too many cards to say what was going on in the film. The audiences would have to use their imagination and work at it. The cast is fine but I prefer "The Lodger" because it was more intense. This film was a fine effort in establishing Hitchcock's genius. The cast was fine but maybe the writing could have been better. I think this film is one of the earliest films about boxing as a sport long before films like "Rocky" and "The Fighter" won awards. This film might be the pioneer of boxing films.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Alfred Hitchcock's "Raging Bull Durham"...
matthewssilverhammer31 March 2020
...jealousy, whether warranted or not, is a tough opponent to beat. If you can get over the slight bit of male ownership (and the comically appalling racism), this is a pretty sweet little romantic dramedy. Hitchcock's skill as a visual storyteller is so apparent and far ahead of his time here. Just wish he didn't hire two dudes who look so similar for the love triangle.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Jack, you're an idiot! Warning: Spoilers
Hitchcock always does good direction and adds nice touches that enhance the enjoyment of the film, but this story, written by Hitch himself, is hard to swallow. Jack and Mabel are engaged to be married. Jack boxes at a sideshow. Boxing champ Bob and his manager come along and decide Jack is good enough to be employed as Bob's sparring partner - and fight some minor fights. While Jack and the manager work out the details, Bob is off with Mabel kissing her. He also gives her a bracelet that she treasures. Sure, Jack and Mabel do get married, but while Jack's working his way up in the boxing ring, Mabel is out partying with Bob. She doesn't hide much from Jack either - her arm around Bob at a party, playing piano while staring at a photo of Bob (and Jack is looking over her shoulder and she knows it!), even going over to Bob and talking at length to him after a sparring session, not to her husband. Sure Jack is jealous, but he does nothing except look angry. Supposedly he'll get his "revenge" in the ring one day when he's won enough matches and worked his way up to a match with the champ. In the meantime, Mabel continues going out with Bob. What can Jack be thinking? It all comes to a head one evening after Jack has finally won the match that will qualify him to fight the champ. Mabel comes home late after partying with Bob (Jack sees her from an upstairs window get out of a car, then go back to it leaning in the window and obviously kissing someone goodnight.) In the heat of the fight, Mabel picks up the photo of Bob that Jack threw on the floor, runs from Jack to the bedroom and locks the door. Jack goes to "the club" (there's always a "club" in the films) where he confronts Bob, slugs him and says Bob can get his revenge in the ring if he wants to. When Jack goes home, Mabel has left him with a note saying she's going to people who treat her properly. What does that mean - that she's going to Bob? You would think Jack would write her off at this point and never have anything to do with her. But wait. The night of the big match comes up. We see Mabel go into Bob's dressing room. Hitchcock wisely does not let us know what is said, but from the looks she's giving, she's still "mooning" over Bob. Here's where it gets very cliché and hokey. Jack is losing the fight - literally knocked out until saved by the bell. At his worst, Mabel goes to the barely conscious Jack in his corner between rounds and tells him she's in his corner, she's with him. I'll bet you can't guess what happens next? Yep, he gets up and wins the fight. What a surprise! And further still, the two of them are reunited. Jack, you're an idiot! Oh, and we are to suppose that because Mabel takes off the bracelet after Jack wins the fight and drops it on the floor that, symbolically, it's now over with Bob? Sorry, but it's hard to believe any man could be the willing cuckold Jack is in this movie. Rather than cheering for Jack and wanting to see them get back together, you spend your time wanting to knock some sense into Jack and tell him to go find someone else who he can trust when his back is turned!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The original Rocky. A story of love, honour, mistakes, and triumph
Aegelis15 April 2021
On the downside, the movie does feel a bit drawn out and ambiguous in a few places. A few points of racism should provoke some distain for that kind of treatment from those of the era and today. Overall, I think a lot of the story line could've been resolved with better communication, but perhaps was was implied was guilty feelings buried deep inside.

There's a lot of cool directing elements here (special effects), symbolism, and even superstition that play a part. Characters seem real and relatable, a foundation to a good drama. Good bit of tension in the fights, especial the final one. Tied in is excellent camerawork, making this a memorable film.

Would've been nice to see more explanatory dialogue and an ending with maybe some kind of apology (or few) involved.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
where's Alfred
kairingler28 December 2013
The first 30 mins or so really was pretty good,, but let me tell you the rest of the movie for it just went on and on and on with no end in sight,, I had to keep myself occupied, trying to find Alfred in his usual cameo role,, maybe I didn't care for the plot that much,, a girl trying to chose between 2 guys.. it's not that it was silent,, because I own several silent films.. I was just praying that last hour would go by quickly and it didn't,, it was painful to sit thru that last hour,, no action,, weak plot... the whole plot is which guy she chooses,, only thing I really got a kick out of was the fact that the dumb girl kept trying to hide the bracelet that the other man had given her,, and so was so obvious in hiding it, that I can't believe that the other man didn't have the eyes to see it.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Amazing use of symbols
freakus7 August 2000
The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.
29 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent Boxing Movier
Hitchcoc12 September 2008
It's a curiosity because it's Hitchcock. The film involves the rivalry between two boxers who have their first encounter at a carnival. It then becomes a romantic tussle for the woman they both want. At times it is quite humorous and even silly, but that may be putting a modern test on it. I would imagine that people loved the boxing sequences, especially the conclusion. Because Hitchcock is no slouch, he gives us more than the predictable ending. Still, it is simplistic. One can see some of the same clichés in Rocky and Cinderella Man, which show that boxing hasn't changed all that much. As a matter of fact, it has become a bit of an anachronism. This is a silent film, so it's hard to talk about the acting. The characters are believable and pretty much under control. There are a couple of Hitchcock moments. The pregnant pause as the referee points to the corners of each at the beginning of the concluding bout. It's like a laser, pointing to the corner. There are some nice close ups and the actors manage pretty well.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The Danish Fighter
bkoganbing7 November 2011
Carl Brisson who was a musical comedy performer from Denmark stars in this silent boxing drama, The Ring which was an early directorial effort by Alfred Hitchcock. For that reason it is still around and restored, otherwise it would have been long forgotten.

The film has Brisson starring as an amateur boxer who is a carnival attraction 'One Round Sander' having people challenge him to see if they can go more than one round with him. He's persuaded by promoter Forrester Harvey who hasn't got Brisson's best interests in mind to turn professional. That Brisson does, but the price of his learning the professional boxing trade is his marriage to Lillian Hall-Davis. A much better fighter in the person of Ian Hunter starts taking an interest in her.

The Ring will never enter the annals of great fight films like Champion or Requiem For A Heavyweight, but it does have its moments. Still I can't think except for Hitchcock completists that there would be much interest in this silent film.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed