Comparing Cool Hand Luke with Hud

Hud is on a par with fine European and American literature, the art of character development was so thoroughly and beautifully expressed. But like those great works of art, it's not for everybody and is a difficult "read" (a difficult watch in this case). The depth requires a concerted effort on the part of the viewer, as well as experience in grasping psychological ramifications of the characters' actions and thoughts. When I first saw it as a 16 year old I couldn't really appreciate it the way I do today, owing to its depth of expressionism and vast range in dealing with not just the story, but the widest and most complete treatment of those qualities I mentioned that I'd ever seen in a movie. However, the common and vulgar nature of its parcipitants, treating Western "cowboys' and not haute European intellectuals makes it deceptively difficult to appreciate, and very possibly requires multiple viewings to even begin to absorb its range. Not only that, but scenes like the killing of the herd were filled with so much meaning, no such events exist in Cool Hand Luke, even though there are numerous terrific incidents of interest and enjoyment in that delightful flic.
Cool Hand Luke, on the other hand, is a very easy "read" (watch). It requires no in-depth analysis to appreciate and, conversely, reveals no new insights upon watching it a second time. If the question is "Which film do you like better?" that's an arbitrary question, depending only on the viewer's opinion, and possibly education. If, however the question is which is the finer work, it's akin to comparing Dostoevsky to Dumas. The novels of Alexander Dumas are a joy to find yourself in, but even though the characters are incredible fun to empathize with, they offer only a surface depth of explication as compared to the incredible multi-faceted and intensely profound interpretations of human nature that Dostoevsky so exquisitely drew from his multiple masterpieces. I found it hilarious (from watch "Beyond the Sea") that Bobby Darin thought he should have won the Oscar that year over Melvyn Douglas, whose acting and character developing was so intense, as compared to the silly, light-weight humor of that inexperienced actor that crossed over into movies with little or no thespian acumen while Douglas was such a consummate professional, better to be compared with Olivier and Sean Connery at their very best.