This "murder mystery" is "more than meets the eye" to the inexperienced.It's difficult to say "specific" things about this film without "spoiling" it.On the artistic level, it is everything that is "correct".I generally don't "and fool. Those of us who have lived in the hood (so to speak), hate to be manipulated, teased, and fooled.Here, though, it is not to "manipulate", not to "tease", not to "fool", but to "validate" the characters.What I can say is that there is a "mystical" quality as well as a "reality" quality, and the two do go hand in hand.That is to say that this might best be called "anti materialism". Here, we see the natural world is a slave to the supernatural world in a way that shows the reality of life at the same time.A bet is made, a sort of Satanic bet in which a "devil" character applies for the role of "Satan".Much as the "usual suspects" apply for the role of "Satan" and make the real Satan show them up in another movie.Except here, the one applying for Satan deals with many factors. He is well blessed, or else he would not be able to begin to apply for a "Satan" role to begin with.This is actually something that does happen in real life. There are actual factions of satanic people, particularly in the U.S. (though this is not set in the U.S.), who tantalize, tease, and torment certain individuals with heinous crimes they know the individual hasn't the resources to prove, solve, or even accuse.In this case, Europe is the setting. And the individual being teased has the benefit of being in some authority.There is much more in this film. I'm not one for twists, but this time the "twists" are not "shark jumping" twists. I don't give it a 10, because I don't like being manipulated at all, so sue me.But it gets the exceptional 9/10. There is much to like about this film, all around.

Well as others have commented there is some great acting here. My favorite is Robert Shaw as the villain, but Martin Ritt as the inspector is also quite good.The problem is that the plot mostly makes absolutely no sense (I can't believe they didn't somehow change what was in the book), and the denouement is more or less unfathomable. It's almost like they had a great setup and didn't know how to explain things or end them.As others mentioned, the film is enveloped in fog and is quite grainy. Switzerland was never that foggy when I was there! And the music didn't really match the action on the film.All in all, from what I can tell, skip this and try the book.

My wife & I saw this as the second feature at a drive-in (yes, that long ago) and it has stayed with us long after we've forgotten the main feature that night. A marvelous game of cat & mouse between two chess-masters, with Voight as their pawn. We've looked for it on television, on tape and on DVD ever since, hoping to decide if it was as impressive as we thought. Schell's direction is superb, building and maintaining a constant tension throughout. The actors performances are, well, what you'd expect from these actors at the top of their game. Beginning with two young men circa WWII, one betting the other that he can get away with a murder, The End of the Game ranks with the best of Le Carre's work in its examination of a master detective's plot to finally catch his bete noir in a crime.

This very artsy movie has within it the elements of a fine noir thriller, but stumbles over its own excesses. First the good news: there are three superb performances here. Martin Ritt (best known as director of "Norma Rae","Hud", "Sounder", "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold", and many others), is superb as the weary but guileful old detective out to settle a score. So is Jon Voight as his newly assigned assistant; Voight's performance right from the beginning suggests he is a seriously unbalanced character and makes much of the remaining action plausible. Though dismissed by some reviewers as bad acting, this really was the only way to make this character work. Finally, Robert Shaw is the bloodless villain, recreating essentially the same character as he did the previous year in "The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three." Now for the bad news: the plot is murky and the ending illogical; the direction and cinematography are grotesque (apparently there is more fog in Switzerland than London and Kodak had a special on grainy film); and the score is so whimsical that it suggests a parody of the genre. Best subtle scene: after Martin Ritt's character is apparently mauled by the Shaw character's guard dog, he (out of everyone's sight) removes a protective shield he had under his coat. That's a first clue that the old detective is up to something.