Nice western with a top cast. Van Heflin, who looks like he has been baked in the sun, discovers a mine filled with gold but gets double-crossed by his partner. So Heflin enlists the help of a trusted old friend George Hilton. But Klaus Kinski, who drinks milk and is dressed as a minister, has a strange hold over Hilton. What’s going on with this pair! Heflin doesn’t trust them and with fear of being stabbed in the back once again, desperately asks Gilbert Roland for help.
The Ruthless Four (in English) is shown on Movies4Men (TV ticker) in the UK and is also [url=http://www.movies4men.co.uk/]streaming for free on their website. Don’t know if you can see the stream outside the UK. Try it out! Click Watch Now and look for it on the list. There’s a few other westerns up there of the American variety and spaghetti war films too (one with Lee Van Cleef). You’ll need to sign-up for free to view the films.
This is a zoomed 4:3 version (before the days of pan and scan). I read elsewhere that it’s the only one that exists. I see the German version is four minutes longer than the American version. Does Kinski burn Hilton with his cigar? This is missing from this version if so. Still worth checking out if you’ve never seen it.
I thought this a good, and quite unusual spaghetti western
Most interesting was the uneasy relationship between Heflin and Hilton
Heflin surely looks very tired (filming under difficult circumstances apparently was too much for him), but in this film that isn’t a problem: he’s an old man and supposed to look tired
I don’t remember if Kinski burned Hilton’s hand (that could well be one of those scenes removed from nearly all versions for censorship reasons)
It is 1968 according to Weisser, imdb, WAI, and this database. Presuming they didn’t all copy each other then I reckon this’d be right (My old vid has no date on it tho’ to confirm). Very correct about KK (The Blond) as ‘allegedly’ …, as camp as they come in this (El Puro aside).
Haha, 40th birthday tomorrow.[/quote]
Happy Birthday to the Ruthless Fortieth then! Well I’m gonna do it the honour of a showing to celebrate. (Got a nice new widescreeny-version thanks to an honourable hombre on this forum. Cheers. ;D ;D)
“It is 1968 according to Weisser, imdb, WAI, and this database.”
It was made in 1966 and released in 1968, you cannot rely on IMDB, i haven’t checked out the others. I have proof somewhere in my internet printouts of Kinski, i’ll try and find it but i’m pretty certain it was made in 1966.
[quote=“CactusCharlie, post:8, topic:858”]“It is 1968 according to Weisser, imdb, WAI, and this database.”
It was made in 1966 and released in 1968, you cannot rely on IMDB, i haven’t checked out the others. I have proof somewhere in my internet printouts of Kinski, i’ll try and find it but i’m pretty certain it was made in 1966.[/quote]
[color=purple]Ok[/color] - I believe you
[quote=“Phil H, post:13, topic:858”]Just to add grist to the mill…
Giusti’s Dizionario Del Western All’italiana lists this one as made in 1967 and released in 1968. However, the final sentence in the commentary states:
“Girato nel 1966 anche negli studi Balcazar.”
Now, I’m no italian speaker but i think that means something like ‘filmed in 1966 according to Balcazar’ (translation help from someone qualified please?)
So maybe it was filmed in 66, completed in 67 and released in 68?[/quote]
The Italian phrase seems incomplete, Phil. (And Balcazar is the name of a studio.)
It says “filmed also in Balcazar studios in 1966” - so my question is: what has exactly been filmed in those studios?
I guess it refers to something already said a line, or a few lines back.
It’s possible that some scenes were shot in '66, while the bulk of the movie was shot during the next year. Balcazar is a Spanish studio, situated in the Barcelona area. According to IMDB this is a Italian/German co-production, so I suppose they shot some outdoor scenes near Barcelona, instead of the Almeria region. I’ve seen the movie but have no copy; we all know the Almeria settings very well and I guess you’ll notice this film’s locations look different. Anyone with a copy should check the begin credits: usually info about studios and shooting years is given.
It is a complete sentence but comes after a long quote. I don’t have the book with me right now but will post the full paragraph when I get home tonight. Maybe this will then make it clearer. (I would post the whole commentary but it’s a page and a half long!)
Things are getting more complicated by the post
But that’s probably a year of a certain release, international maybe (I wrote that the year of shooting was given, but that is less likely, I realise now)