Diagonaldi Very well executed

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

kenjha Via flashbacks, this uneven drama tells the rags to riches story of a philanthropist. Scott is OK if somewhat one-dimensional as the ruthless social climber willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top. This is one of the better films of the legendary Ulmer, who has been championed by the likes of Peter Bogdanovich. The B-movie maestro is particularly good here in recreating the small town atmosphere of Scott's youth. Unfortunately, the script is meandering and gets too bogged down in financial dealings as Scott tries to grow his business. Wholesome Lynn and promiscuous Bremer are among the women Scott becomes romantically entangled with.

random_avenger Edgar G. Ulmer (1904-72) may be best remembered for the pessimistic 1945 film noir Detour, but that is only one of his several directing credits, many of which have fallen out of fame over the past decades. One of Ulmer's lesser known works is his 1948 drama Ruthless, a character study of a superficially successful but inwardly broken man, in some ways evoking memories of the themes in Orson Welles' legendary debut feature Citizen Kane (1941).Like many noirs, Ruthless utilizes extensive flashbacks in its narrative. The frame story takes place in a high society party where Vic Lambdin (Louis Hayward) and his lady friend Mallory Flagg (Diana Lynn) have arrived to meet Vic's old friend Horace Vendig (Zachary Scott), a millionaire philanthropist. Upon meeting Mallory, Vendig is startled by her resemblance to a girl called Martha Burnside, Vic and Vendig's common friend who was once engaged to marry the latter. Several flashbacks then cast light on what has happened between Vendig, Vic, Martha and other figures from the past, some of whom are present at the party. In spite of his generous donations to charitable organizations, in his personal life Vendig is revealed to be far from perfect.Vendig's personality is seen stemming from his childhood trauma of feeling unwanted by his parents. Perhaps this is why he never really allows anyone get close to him, always handling his relationships in a cold and calculating manner. Even though the premise sounds fairly interesting, the execution is not without its problems. Namely, a lot of the lengthy flashbacks feel too long and seem to merely present the actions of Vendig rather than providing insight on his inner world. He mentions that he is aware of his irresistible urge to strive for success which causes him to knowingly hurt his loved ones by dumping them in favour of business opportunities, but the scenes of him going through numerous financial negotiations and meetings start feeling tiresome soon. How does he feel about what he does? I don't think we, the audience, ever get to know him very well, but he does not really carry an aura of mystery around him either because the writing leaves his traits too scarce. Some might call this lack of clearness subtlety, but I would have wanted to see more clues about Vendig's thoughts and how he became what he is at the dramatic ending.Regardless of my complaints above, I enjoyed many aspects of the film. For one thing, the acting is generally good throughout; especially the women are at home in their roles, from the beautiful Diana Lynn in a double role as Martha and Mallory to Lucille Bremer as the frustrated Christa Mansfield and Martha Vickers as Vendig's fiancée Susan. Sydney Greenstreet also delivers a great performance as Bremer's on-screen husband Buck Mansfield, an aging businessman who has to face his limitations due to Vendig's schemes. On the other hand though, the kid actors in the first flashback are not as impressive as the adults, but Ruthless is hardly the first (or last) movie with kids as the weakest link. Zachary Scott's "old" makeup could have been more convincing too; a small moustache is hardly enough to convey the feel of an older man. Other than that, the melancholic-looking Scott suits the lead role somewhat comfortably.Some of the shadowy photography in the exterior scenes and low camera angles looks pretty nice, even though the visuals are not really as starkly contrasted as in many proper noirs. It is probably best to see Ruthless as a withdrawn character study instead of expecting anything very 'hard-boiled' to ever step into the picture. In the end, with more fleshed out character development Ruthless could have been a very enjoyable film, but I think it is easily watchable as it is now as well, flawed or not.

Howard_B_Eale This may be Edgar G. Ulmer's masterpiece. RUTHLESS is a terrific noir/melodrama - sharply written (by the to-be-blacklisted Alvah Bessie and Gordon Kahn), consistently beautifully photographed (by the underrated Bert Glennon), and truly adventurous in its editing and flash forward-flash backward construction.Zachary Scott is the "ruthless" title character, but the title is more a cheap shot than anything else; Scott's Vendig is more an emotionally bankrupt, pathological character than a villain per se. The narrative takes pains to reveal - gradually - the series of events from childhood through adulthood which affected his perverse makeup, making for a fascinating character study. Subtle revelations and plot twists come about every fifteen minutes, but they're deliberately ambiguous when they hit the screen, forcing the viewer to pay close attention as the truth of the situation is revealed. This technique alone puts RUTHLESS way ahead of any other Poverty Row melodrama of the period and cements Ulmer's reputation as a thoughtful stylist.Louis Hayward plays a sort of Greek chorus, an often acquiescent voice of conscience/best friend/nemesis who keeps the episodic story moving along. Diana Lynn (in two roles), Martha Vickers and Lucille Bremer each give terrific performances as the various women who appear, disappear, and reappear in the lives of both men. All are sharply drawn, a testament to the determination of Bessie, Kahn and other blacklisted writers to put strong female characters on screen in defiance of the Production Code, which seemed to encourage either submissive or predatory roles for women.And as if all that isn't enough, Sidney Greenstreet drops in and sets the screen on fire in every sequence he appears in. A classic coiled spring, his portrayal of a similarly greedy corporate boss is perfectly slimy, and provides a genuine shock when he suddenly grabs Lucille Bremer by the hair and jerks her backwards for a kiss. Likewise, a later sequence where Bremer drags him in front of the mirror so she can brutally compare him to her new, younger lover is unforgettably painful.RUTHLESS sits comfortably alongside DETOUR, THE MAN FROM PLANET X and THE STRANGE WOMAN, other Ulmer gems of note. A great movie.

RanchoTuVu Apparently a brief exchange between the adolescent boy (Bobby Anderson) and his father (Raymond Burr) in which the father tells him that opportunity only comes around once, is the reason why Anderson morphs into the social climbing and ruthless business tycoon played by Zachary Scott. It hardly seems like enough of an influence to change a nice kid into a prototypical (and stereotypical) greedy capitalist millionaire. Though it's difficult to establish a connection between the two, Scott makes a believable social climber, and the story has a pretty good trajectory from his adolescence through dark mansions and well furnished offices with New York skyline views, to a finale gala event where Scott is organizing a philanthropy to unload some of his millions and ease his conscience. Ulmer doles out the action in bits and pieces, but delivers a pretty memorable ending.