PodBill Just what I expected

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Michael O'Keefe Director Edgar Ulmer wants RUTHLESS to put himself up there with the bigger directors. This is one of those old black and white dramas you won't walk away from. Horace Vendig(Zachary Scott)is the product of a broken home; not having any of the luxuries his friends had. Horace honed his intelligence to become a cold-hearted, callous and ruthless financier. Even his childhood friend Vic(Louis Hayward)could not believe what he made of himself. Vendig would charm women to just throw away when another caught his eye. Love was out of the question. All Horace was interested in was notoriety and wealth. He sold himself as a respectable philanthropist; while all along he shamelessly trampled on anyone that got in his way. Matinée idol Scott plays the role very well. Scenery and storyline are interesting and the cast is strong. Other players: Diana Lynn, Martha Vickers, Sydney Greenstreet, Lucille Bremer and Raymond Burr. Robert J. Anderson plays Horace with Arthur Stone playing Vic in the flashback scenes. Borderline Film Noir.

secondtake Ruthless (1948)A great, layered melodrama, with flashbacks and male and female rivalries and a really strong narrative thread. There are a bunch of interesting actors at work who never had huge careers, the main man being familiar to me from "Mildred Pierce" two years earlier, Zacharay Scott. The director, though, is a favorite noir director of mine, Edgar Ulmer, who had a string of great films in the late 1940s. So this is one of them, though not quite a noir.In fact, this is a kind of financiers movie, which isn't actually a genre thank God. But the weakest part of the film (at least for a non-Wall Street viewer) is a lot of talk about business deals. Luckily, you don't need to follow them to the letter, because it's the characters--their tricks, their greed, their games--who make it come alive. And of course there are women involved (compelling ones like Diana Lynn), and memories of a childhood girlfriend, so we feel something for the good friend of the leading capitalist male, and even for Sydney Greenstreet, who plays an aging businessman, even amusing.The whole enterprise gets fairly involved and makes you pay attention, which is good, and leads to a pretty spectacular last scene off the pier.

jim riecken (youroldpaljim) RUTHLESS seems to be Edgar G. Ulmers attempt to film a story similar to CITIZEN KANE. Like CITIZEN KANE, RUTHLESS is the story of the rise and fall of man from a humble background who rises to the top, destroying several people along the way, only to end up having his past catch up with him at the end. RUTHLESS also has CITIZEN KANE's flashback structure and both characters come from quaint small towns. Unlike Charles Kane, Horace Wooddruff Vendig is a far more ruthless character and- unlike Charles Kane- evokes little sympathy. He destroys his first love, first by stealing her from his best friend, then dumping her for another woman when he meets another girl whose family can provide him with better connections to move the economic ladder. The women he uses, with the exception of his first love Martha, evoke little sympathy. In a way they are just as ruthless as Vendig. The women are solely attracted to him by his power and wealth, and when they are discarded, the viewer can't help feel they had it coming. Don't complain when you play with vipers and then get bitten would be my advice to these women. RUTHLESS doesn't quite deserve the praise some viewers have recently heaped upon it. The pacing is sometimes off and the film is a bit overlong. The cast is good, with Sydney Greenstreet giving as usual (if at times over the top) attention grabbing performance. Director Ulmer handles the direction with confidence and style. Overall, RUTHLESS is a not bad imitation of a much better film, but when viewing it, the viewer can't help think something is lacking.

aromatic-2 Kind of cross between Keeper of The Flame and Citizen Kane, Zachry is perfect as the ice-cold schemer who confuses love and friendship for weakness and folly. Burr is great in minor role, explaining Scott's character. But it goes on too long, and after awhile, it becomes tiresome how many people with warning are still being taken in by him. After all, Zachry's smooth, but he's no Bill Clinton. Too, Greenstreet is over-the-top in pivotal role, spoiling some of the effect. Overall, worth watching, but by no means, great.