On H List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Hud (1963)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
6/20
6/20:
Hud spends two hours telling me the titular character cares about nobody but himself.
Wow, consider me enlightened...not. The trouble with the dark, depressing, and sometimes maudlin film is that it feels like a play
with lots of melodrama. Getting to the bottom of the issues takes a while, and by the time I'm finally there, all I can say
is: "That's it?"
As for Hud, he isn't the problem; it's the father who's an unsupportive parent, causing Hud to be who he is. Hence, Lon is
too idealistic to understand what's going on. Maybe he'll figure it out when he grows up some more and goes through some tough
Texas living (whatever that means).
By far the most interesting subplot is the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. I
can't say anything negative about the remedy because it's a highly contagious disease with no cure that continues
worldwide to this day. In spite of it being mostly nonfatal, livestock slaughter is the primary means of
controlling the epidemic. By the way, the United States hasn't had an outbreak since 1929.
Thanks to his deep blue eyes, the impeccably dressed Paul Newman looks great in black and white and gives a solid performance;
I have absolutely no complaints about him. He made a lot of stride in terms of acting since
The Hustler. But Brandon
deWilde, who was perfect in Shane, looks miscast as he sticks out like a sore thumb while everybody else belongs in
the film. It's difficult for me to look past him and get on with the show.
Three Oscars for Hud? I have to say Patricia Neal gives an ordinary performance. She won Best Actress, if
you can believe that when it's at best a supporting role, while her co-star Melvyn Douglas was actually in the leading role.
His character is nothing new. Ward Bond or Walter Brennan, anyone? On the other hand, the black-and-white cinematography is average.
All in all, Hud takes too long to make a hollow point.