Sorry if this has already been posted, if it has I could not find it. Which movie did everyone like better? Cool Hand Luke is my all time favorite movie, but a friend of mine told me that this one was better. I own both, but I have not seen Hud. And don't gripe at me and tell me to just watch the movie. I plan on watching it but I do not want to get my hopes up about it being better and then not like it because its not. Thanks!
shareHUD is my #8 all-time and it was Newman's best performance.
shareI have come to the conclusion that all the posters here claiming that Hud is the superior movie are just trying to yank everyone's chain. Either that or they didnt watch the same "Hud" that I watched. There are people that do that. You can go to youtube and watch some video of someoene playing the guitar or singing terribly and there are always posters saying how great they are. Tone deaf or chain yankers I say.
Hud is far inferior to Cool Hand Luke. Hud has some good moments but nothing to compare to CHL. That's why nobody and I mean nobody ever mentions HUD when talking about great movies. It wasnt exactly a DUD but compared to CHL it came close. Pat Neal was the best thing going for Hud but even she coudnt save it. In conversations with people about movies, CHL always manages to get quoted or talked about. I didnt even know HUD existed until I got the internet but have heard about CHL for almost all my life( long, long time , how long -since the day it came out, Yea I'm old LOL).
CHL is a flashier, more melodramatic film. It's loner vs the world, and the audience (like in Bonnie and Clyde) is forced to sympathize with a character who is, frankly, a petty criminal, an adolescent, if you will, who can't find the means to grow up. Hud, on the other hand, is a much more complicated character film, that speaks to not only the father/son conflicts that many of us face, but also the traditional good guy/bad guy Western portraits. Hud is transitional, in that respect, as the film ends with the bad guy actually "winning."
I love CHL for the set pieces it provides (girl washing the car/egg eating/what we have here is failure to communicate), but its a straight up "rebel without a cause" film, with little of the nuance that Hud provides. Newman manages, in Hud, to make his character rounded and full. In CHL, his character never really changes.
So, I would respectfully disagree with your analysis. If you can, check out the NYT's review of Hud in the critics section. It speaks to many of the reasons why Hud is such a strong film.
Hud. It is simply a stripped down film for men who have learned something of life.
Luke is fun, but gimmicky and cheats (the bosomy car wash scene, for ex.). Luke is good but not fully mature. However, the original text is much tougher than the movie.
LL
Everyone's free to have an opinion.
Personally I dislike pitting films against one another. It's really a matter of taste.
Having seen both movies and heard both directors discuss Paul Newman as he prepared those characters, I gotta say both movies are astounding masterpieces of American cinema.
Paul Newman gave so many amazing performances but one that nobody seems to be mentioning is "Sweet Bird of Youth". It's a flawed movie, but he and Geraldine Page had an amazing thing going on in that film. It has to be seen to be believed.
While we must agree to disagree on Hud and Luke we can absolutely agree on Sweet Bird of Youth. I found that in the lobby of a motel on the north Oregon Coast. I popped that in and was riveted. As I recall it was beautifully filmed, too.
LL
[deleted]
I prefer to replace the word "taste" with "baggage", because each person has a unique life experience that influences how they react to a movie, to a book, to music, etc.
For example, I've listened to classical music for almost 50 years. Intel's new "Beethoven's Fifth" commercial is musically very clever, which most classical and jazz listeners will catch, but others might miss. How many of you caught what its creators were doing?
That said, no one is entitled to an opinion unless they can rationally defend it. At the very least, one should give the criteria for "goodness" or "badness" one is judging by -- which LukeCoolHand does not.
I haven't read Cool Hand Luke, but I have read Horseman, Pass By, and can tell you -- factually -- that Hud is a simple-minded and shallow adaptation. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good -- or even great -- film.
Cool Hand Luke is about a man who can't handle the "slings and arrows" of life, and has little desire to live. He eventually gets his wish. His death serves no higher purpose, and is arguably self-indulgent. Though I'm a thoroughly anti-establishment person, I find nothing inspirational about Luke's "victimization". He has no particular world view or goal to guide him, so his behavior is largely reactive. That he stumbles and falls is largely his own doing.
Hud, on the other hand, offers the possibility of getting the audience angry about something that matters. Both the novel and film are attacks on America's "grubby materialism" (which, at the moment, is moving our society towards what could be irreversible collapse). Hud doesn't "win" at the end, because he's thrown away every good thing that money can't buy.
It was a pleasure to read thru this thread.
Agreed. So many different takes on the two films. My opinion has already been stated by others , so there's not much more for me to say but that it's a very good thread and part of what makes it so good is that people are behaving reasonably on it, expressing themselves, not flaming.
shareCHL is great, but "Hud" is my favorite Newman movie.
share