The Deadly Trackers (1973) 7/10

further discussion here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=11691.0

[RE: the movie's availability:]

I watched it once a very long time ago from a fullscreen VHS. It was a weak film then, one which is imo not influenced by SWs (I generally think that SWs had apart from Eastwood's westerns about zero influence on US Westerns), but is a typical violent and pessimistic US Western in the wake of The Wild Bunch.

But I'm interested to check my view on the film. But it is tricky to get a watchable copy here.

The Wild Bunch itself was influenced by spags, specifically Leone.


In The Deadly Trackers, you have the outlandish violence and lots of blood, the Texas/Mexico setting, insane crudeness and vulgarity, like in the scene where the gang is stuffing their faces with the food in the old Mexican couple's hut, whorehouses, Catholic imagery, specifically the Catholic imagery is interwoven in the violence, with the shootout taking place in the convent. (The only thing which is very anti-spag is the whole morality/legality debate!)
You can debate whether it's spag-influenced, or The Wild Bunch-influenced, whether it's imitating the spags or imitating the American movies that imitated the spags; but the point is that it is the sort of Western that is particular to the late-60's/early 70's.


RE: the movie's availability: I don't know about Europe, but here in America, the movie is available on a double-sided dvd; the other side is Man in the Wilderness (1971), another Western with Richard Harris. The dvd is available cheaply on Amazon, which lists it as Region 1 http://www.amazon.com/Man-Wilderness-The-Deadly-Trackers/dp/B00132D7Y0
I rented the dvd from Netflix; the image quality is very good on The Deadly Trackers; I am in middle of Man in the Wilderness; the 22 minutes I have seen so far look real good as well.
There are no bonus features for either movie.
Audio/Subtitles are the same for both movies: The only audio available is English mono. Optional subtitles are available in English, French, and Spanish.

---------------------------

As an aside, RE: the matter of spags' violence, crudeness, vulgarity, outlandishness, etc.
 I just wanna say that when people talk about the spag violence, IMO there is a very big difference between Leone spags and non-Leone spags. Although the Leone films may have had violence and crudeness way beyond what was seen in prior AW's, IMO the non-Leone spags took the outlandishness to a whole new insane level. (And unlike some of the other spags, I don't think any of the violence in Leone's movies gratuitous). If you look at movies like Django, The Big Gundown, Death Rides a Horse, and particularly The Mercenary  the levels of crudeness/violence/outlandishness (which I will call "CVO") are way beyond the Leone films. Of course, they may have been influenced by the CVO in Leone's films, but they took it not just a step further, but ten steps further.

 Just as people say that there is a clear difference in CVO between the AW's that came before the mid-60's and the  SW's/AW's from the mid-60's onward, I believe there is a clear difference in CVO between the Leone spags and the non-Leone spags (which I will abbreviate to "NLS").

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using the general term "spag-influence"; I use that term all the time. (And of course, there are plenty of unique spag features other than CVO, and in those, the Leone spags perhaps might be indeed similar to the NLS). I'm just saying that even when we use the general term "spag-influence," IMO the CVO of the NLS I've seen is in a whole other category than the CVO of Leone's films.

p.s. those 4 movies I mentioned -- The Big Gundown, Death Rides a Horse, Django, and The Mercenary -- are the only NLS I have ever seen. That's not a great sample size, however, but it seems to me, from reading these boards, that those 4 are the most famous NLS, or very nearly so. And since pretty much all of them contain these characteristics I am mentioning, I think it's fair for me to make these generalized statements about NLS. I mean, it's possible that I just happened to have seen the 4 most outlandish NLS, and the others are calm in comparison, but I don't assume that's the case  

 (btw, in this discussion, I am not including comedies, like the Trinity movies).

[1.5 out of 4 stars]

The story for this movie was written by Sam Fuller, who was the original director. He started filming the movie, which was then called Riata, but had "artistic differences" and was fired, and then Brian Shear was brought in to direct the new film, from scratch.

Now I'm having some fun reading the critics' reviews linked to on imdb. They range from loved it to hated it.

The reviews are linked to here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069951/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

I will cut and paste a couple here:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

First is one from TV Guide, which gives the movie a rating of 1.5 out of 4 stars

http://movies.tvguide.com/the-deadly-trackers/review/112525


A senseless, violent, bloody mess that makes Sam Peckinpah look like Walt Disney in comparison. Originally conceived and directed by Sam Fuller, the studio allowed him to shoot over $1 million worth of footage until he was fired because of "artistic" differences with the film's egotistical star, Harris, who simply wouldn't take direction from him. The studio then scrapped all the footage, hired Shear to replace Fuller, and started over. The result is a lame tale wherein Harris, a gentle sheriff, seeks revenge on renegade outlaws, led by Taylor, who had senselessly (and on-screen) slaughtered his family. He spends most of the movie hunting down Taylor and his gang until he finally eliminates them in an extended, bloody climax where everyone is killed (including Harris). Harris is awful as he alternately whispers or shouts his lines while committing gory acts more horrible than those of the killers he's tracking. By the time it came to score the film, the studio didn't feel like sinking any more cash into the project, so it just borrowed Jerry Fielding's brilliant score for Peckinpah's masterpiece THE WILD BUNCH (1969) and stuck it in during the most inane passages of this fiasco. While the film may be bad, swiping Fielding's best work for this trash is a sin.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a review from Charles Tatum, who gives the movie a rating of 5 out of 5 stars

http://tatumarchive.blogspot.com/2012/09/barry-shears-deadly-trackers.html






Richard Harris, who has appeared in quite a few westerns for being from across the Atlantic, tackles another role with gusto in this hard hitting 1973 film.

Harris is Kilpatrick, a pacifist sheriff in a Texas town. Rod Taylor and his gang rob the bank, kill a few people, and get set to ride off with the loot. Harris blocks their departure with a system the town has rigged up so as not to kill anyone, just capture them. He does not believe in guns, and only shoots to injure and scare, not kill. Taylor and the gang kill Harris' wife and child, and ride away, with Harris on their trail. He does not let that pesky Mexican border deter him either, as he rides on through and meets another lawman a lot like him.

Al Lettieri plays Gutierrez, who is also after Taylor. However, Gutierrez's pacifism comes to annoy the viewer as well as Harris. The Mexican sheriff is insistent on letting justice prevail, always looking for witnesses, and never just going after and killing the bloodthirsty gang. Harris begins to catch up to the gang, and dispatches them one by one, until he finally is down to two. He is also on his last nerve, as he finally gives in to his gun's quick justice. The climactic shootout in the convent, where Harris finds himself on the same level as Taylor, is very moving.

Despite the (PG) rating, this is one violent film. Once the viewer overcomes this, they are definitely in for a wild ride. Harris is great as the vengeful sheriff who will not die, and brings the same intensity to this that he showed in the "A Man Called Horse" series. Rod Taylor goes down in western film history as one of the meanest villains on celluloid. One great scene has him describe how he murdered his father, as even his jaded gang looks at him in horror.

In the outlaw gang- William Smith, who seems to have been in everything and you will recognize him the minute you see him, does well as the seemingly retarded Schoolboy. Neville Brand is good as Choo Choo, who earned that nickname because he has a section of rail where his hand was. Paul Benjamin is great as Jacob, a very intelligent black man who uses his wits to outsmart the rest of the gang, but cannot get past how others feel about his color.

As mentioned before, the cast is great except for the character of Gutierrez. Eventually, he became a thorn in the side of Harris and the audience. He never seemed to get what Harris was trying to do, and adhered so closely to the law that he became annoying. His final murderous act is more frustrating than noble.

Shear's direction is okay, once in a while I would notice the shadow of a camera in an outdoor scene. His decision to use still shots from the movie in the opening credits might have people checking the pause button on their VCR, and I am not sure why he did this. His actions scenes are good, with good stuntwork, but again, be forewarned of the violence, especially directed toward children.

Despite an awkward title, "The Deadly Trackers" is good adult western fare that probably should have received more praise than it has- especially for Taylor and Harris. I highly recommend it. (* * * * *) out of five stars.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And thanks to Google Newspapers, here are some newspaper reviews:



Edward L. Blank in The Pittsburgh Press http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jW8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nVQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7183,2783327&dq=who%27s+kidding+constantly+reprised+excerpts+deadly-trackers&hl=en (the review for The Deadly Trackers is to the right of Executive Action; you'll have move the blue box over to the right a little).



Dave Billington of The Montreal Gazette http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=opcuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m6EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=915,2273712&dq=the-deadly-trackers&hl=en

Michael McKegney in The Village Voice http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9dMQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=B4wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6172,2493592&dq=the-deadly-trackers&hl=en


Happy reading!

[The Deadly Trackers (1973) 7/10]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069951/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

The Deadly Trackers (1973) 7/10

Cast, courtesy of wikipedia

    Richard Harris as Sheriff Sean Kilpatrick
    Rod Taylor as Frank Brand
    Al Lettieri as Gutierrez, Mexican Policeman
    Neville Brand as Choo Choo
    William Smith as Schoolboy
    Paul Benjamin as Jacob
    Pedro Armendáriz Jr. as Herrero
    Isela Vega as Maria
    Kelly Jean Peters as Katharine Kilpatrick
    William Bryant as Deputy Bill
    Sean Marshall as Kevin Kilpatrick
    Read Morgan as Deputy Bob
    Joan Swift as Teacher
    Ray Moyer as Priest
    Armando Acosta as Mole


 Sheriff Kilpatrick doesn't carry a gun, but is well-known for his belief in pacifist methods. One day, 4 outlaws come into his town, led by Frank Brand. When the foursome murder Kilpatrick's wife and son, he decides violence is the way to go about things after all, and chases them into Mexico.
In Mexico, he encounters a federale' named Guitierrez, who is also chasing Brand, who is wanted for murder in Mexico. But Guitierrez strongly believes in justice and due process, and is chasing Brand do he can bring him in, not kill him. So the two lawmen are chasing the same guy while battling each other over legal theory.


Read what you like into the whole morality/violence/due process debate (A response to Vietnam? A response to Dirty Harry? A response to Westerns?... And I got a kick over how in the movie, it is the lawman from Mexico lecturing the one from America about due process   Bottom line for me is, I had no interest in this morality debate, but as a chase/action movie goes, there's a lot of fun to be had here.

This movie is obviously very spag-influenced, you may find the violence at times gratuitous. I have no idea how in hell this movie was only rated PG, and this in 1973 (just three years before Taxi Driver was nearly rated X for the shootout; what saved the X rating was Scorcese masking the color in that final scene so the blood wouldn't look quite so real). In The Deadly Trackers, there is lots of crudeness and violence, and there is a major shootout in a convent – another thing definitely spag-influenced, the intertwining of Catholicism and violence.


One of the best things about this movie is the cinematography. It's very stylized and incredibly done, the camerawork is just wonderful.

So, roll your eyes and laugh through the morality and legality stuff, this a fun chase Western.

Someone once described these late 60's/early 70's AW's as something like "poor American-made imitations of poor Italian-made imitations of American-made movies." Take out the "poor," and this is what you have here  

I am reading in reviews that the music, though credited to "Fred Steiner" is actually Jerry Fielding's score for The Wild Bunch. Not the same songs re-orchestrated, but the exact same tracks! (See the next post for some of the reviews).

Saw the movie on dvd; it's part of a twin bill with Man in the Wilderness.

[yellow text contains spoilers]

Leave Her to Heaven (1945) 6/10
Daw on TCM. The print is near-perfect. Just a few speckles, and a brief sound issue toward the end.
This film, in glorious Technicolor, is beautiful to look at. Colors look like a beautiful painting. The sets are beautiful, almost fairy-tale like. Some are process shots, but still, the film is absolutely beautiful to look at.
Tierney looks terrific, though her acting seems a bit forced, ie. she looks like she's acting, there's nothing natural about it. But she is always lovely to watch. Jeanne Crain did a good job in her role.
Fun to see a very young Vincent Price.


But the story doesn't hold you that much. I just didn't find the scenes all that interesting. And I think the framing device was useless, except to needlessly give away some of the story.

-------------------------------------------------------

yellow text contains spoilers

The trial was ludicrous. The Vincent Price character, who admittedly had a personal relationship with the characters involved, would never have been allowed to prosecute this case in a million years. And the idea that Cornel Wilde would actually not say what he knows about Gene Tierney right away, but, in order to make the movie "work" withholds the information till the end,  The idea that he wouldn't tell what he knows about Tierney until the last moment, especially when it's jeopardizing Crain, is ridiculous. The trial scene made me wince terribly.

---------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line for me is that this movie is absolutely beautiful to look at, but otherwise is not very good.

Here is a 6-minute clip of Martin Scorcese – who is a big fan of the movie – discussing the movie as he introduces it at the New York Film Festival in 2007  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATfhKmkM-rE

Yeah so, what's your point?
The little Patricia Janeckova has an incredible voice for the main theme.
I don't think she was posted anywhere else.

The title of this thread says it all.

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=11647.msg164730#msg164730

May 30 in primetime is "Clint Eastwood as Director" night http://www.tcm.com/schedule/index.html?tz=est&sdate=2013-05-30

In addition to airing Bird and White Hunter Black Heart, they will be showing (for what I believe is the very first time) a new documentary by Richard Schickel about Eastwood as director, called Eastwood Directs: The Untold Story

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/612570%7C0/Clint-Eastwood-as-Director-5-30.html


EASTWOOD DIRECTS: THE UNTOLD STORY
THURSDAY MAY, 30 2013 AT 08:00 PM
THURSDAY MAY, 30 2013 AT 11:15 PM


"He's one of the most successful filmmakers in history, he's a brilliant actor, and he just continues to do his thing. And he's laughing all the way to the movies." - Steven Spielberg

Eastwood Directs: The Untold Story (2013) makes the case for what most film critics and many filmgoers have known for years: Over the course of one of the longest active careers in Hollywood, Clint Eastwood has transformed himself from western movie icon to Hollywood superstar to one of the greatest and most intelligent directors of our time.

The 65-minute documentary from longtime film critic, film historian, documentary filmmaker, and Eastwood biographer Richard Schickel plays like a companion piece to his 2010 documentary The Eastwood Factor. Where that earlier production profiles Eastwood the actor and icon, Eastwood Directs focuses on his legacy as the director of over thirty films, with special attention paid to a few of his greatest and most important accomplishments: his directorial debut on Play Misty for Me (1971), the films that earned Eastwood his Oscars® for Best Director and Best Picture, Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004), his ambitious biographical portrait of J. Edgar (2011).

You might say that the evidence speaks for itself, but Schickel promises "the untold story" and he follows through. There are new interviews with Eastwood, who is his usual modest self as he shares stories from the set but generous with his praise as he discusses his greatest influences as a young director, Sergio Leone (who made him an international movie star in the Dollars films and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, 1966) and Don Siegel (Coogan's Bluff [1968] and Dirty Harry [1971] among others).

Less shy are filmmakers Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg and actors Meryl Streep, Gene Hackman, Hal Holbrook, Hillary Swank, Kevin Bacon, Marcia Gay Hardin, Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, and Morgan Freeman. They have no such modesty when they discuss Eastwood's legacy or, in the case of his co-stars, his gifts as a director of actors. Streep describes his approach to directing actors as "a seductive diffidence" and marvels that Eastwood and his stars line up with the crew and the extras at lunch. Longtime collaborators discuss the loyalty Eastwood commands thanks to his egalitarian set. Revealing behind-the-scenes footage confirms that Eastwood is a confident and easy-going filmmaker who treats his cast and crew with respect. Schickel gives us a sense of what it's like to be on an Eastwood set, and it's as different from the Hollywood cliché of spoiled stars and tyrannical directors as you'll find.

With a career as long and rich as Eastwood's, some major films are unfortunately only touched upon (such as Bird [1988], one of Eastwood's most personal projects, and A Perfect World, 1993), but Schickel makes his point. Eastwood has not only made his mark as a major American filmmaker, he has consistently redefined what a "Clint Eastwood" movie is over the course of a career that spans more than fifty years as an actor and forty years as a director. Martin Scorsese, as perceptive a filmmaker and critic as we have, sums up his evolution as a filmmaker: "If the stories are becoming more complicated, the style doesn't. That's the difference."

"I like the way he operates. I want to be like Clint." - Tommy Lee Jones

By Sean Axmaker

For Whom the Bell Tolls I found on the dull side. Definitely a case, not unlike the '74 Gatsby, of a literary adaptation being too faithful to the source.

well I don't consider 7/10 to be a great rating. IMO, it's the lowest rating for a "good" movie. Anything less means, "Don't watch." 7/10 basically means, it can be enjoyed, check it out when it's on tv, but don't make a point of seeing it. That's basically how I feel: There's what to enjoy (mostly cuz of the characters), but nothing particularly special. An enthusiastic recommendation begins at 8/10 for me 

[For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) 7/10]

For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) 7/10

I've never read the book; this discussion is entirely about the movie and no comparisons to the book.

The acting is splendid all around, the story is alright, you're definitely kept interested in the characters and story (except the annoying Gypsy dude whom I couldn't stand).

My problems: There's a shitload of process shots. Looks like almost all the scenes in the mountains were shot on soundstages, there is no sense of location whatsoever, which is a big flaw for a movie that is supposedly taking place in the mountains. The sky, moon, stars look so hilariously fake, it could be for a cartoon. Ingrid Bergman's makeup is always perfect throughout the three days of hiding in a cave and fighting. Cooper's final lines to Bergman sound like he is reading from a book. I'm sure it's taken from the book, but still, when he says them, it shouldn't sound like he is reading someone a book. But it does.
The lighting in the mountains is beautiful -- way too beautiful. Even a full moon can't make night lighting that perfect.

So the film is acted very well, but the technical stuff is way too Hollywood.

It's a darn shame the young Bergman didn't do more color movies. I never realized what gorgeous blue eyes she had....

He he, actually I'm not that evil, not yet. But still hoped that Fond wins. In real life I would vote for Bronson, but in a film I chose those who are more interesting, and Fonda has the better role, and is the more fascinating actor.
How can one be interested in such an empty character like Harmonica?

And for Hud, he is much too complex and ambivalent to simply despise him as a bad bastard. And Hud is not the type of film which divides its characters in simple good and bad. In real life I wouldn't have him as my neighbor, but in a film I like him.

I also felt pity at the end of Schindler's list for the Ralph Fiennes character, and that was one who really deserved death.

Harmonica is an empty character? Dude, like, seriously. Maybe for you, any character who is anything less than an evil bastard is boring.

You felt pity for the fucking Nazi? (Yeah, I guess the Jews were probably boring empty characters). Why does that not surprise me? What surprises me is why I even bother responding to you.

That's not a fact, that's an assumption. I often cheer for the bad guy. I hoped that Sentenza wins the triello in GBU and I favoured Fonda in OuTW. I think that the audience very often finds the baddie more fascinating than the hero. and more attractive. It depends on the individual film.Not for me.

You may have misunderstood me:

When it's bad guy vs. good guy, you may find the bad guy more interesting and root for him. I agree with that. But that's not what I am talking about.

I am talking about a case where the main character is a bad bastard and it's not really him against anyone else -- it's just a question of do you like him or not. That's what I am talking about. When a film has one clear main character, audiences will often root for him even if he is a bastard. Like with Hud -- it's not really him vs. anyone else; it's just a question of do you like/sympathize Hud or not? And the bottom line is that we generally sympathize with the main character of a movie, even when he is a jerk.
I agree with Roger Ebert's opening sentence of his Arbitrage review http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/arbitrage-2012
"We tend to identify with the leading character of a film, even if he is a heartless bastard." Really, is there anyone who saw Arbitrage and wasn't rooting for Richard Gere to get away with his crimes. Even though there isn't anyone who could actually justify everything he has done.


-----

BY THE WAY, as an aside: No one who isn't a very evil human being could root for Frank to beat Harmonica in that duel. Frank is one of the cruelest villains of any Western, massacring an entire family without batting an eye: there are a lot of terrible actions we excuse from a movie character, but murdering children in cold blood is not one of them; and (while we don't know what Harmonica's brother did to Frank), the way Frank  forces Harmonica to participate in his own brother's death is Nazi-like.
Nobody loves Henry Fonda more than I do, and nobody loves watching Frank more than I do, but only a very evil human being could root for Frank to beat Harmonica in that duel

[Blue Valentine (2010)]

Just saw Blue Valentine (2010)

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams both give brilliant performances here.

That movie is done very well for what it is, but it is way too artsy for me. If you like artsy shit, you'll love this.

I mean, I don't have a problem with the use of flashbacks and all, but it gets very confusing at times. By the end of the movie, you pretty much know when everything has taken place, but as it's happening, it's really not all that clear.

Yellow text is spoilers

IMO, the movie never justifies why Williams wants to leave Gosling. Yeah, she is pissed off that he shows up drunk to her office, but then she starts crying about how she wants a divorce cuz she can't take all this and that they are always fighting etc, and we've really never seen them fighting before. Yeah, there may be small things, I've seen some critics point out how Gosling doesn't wash the paint off his hands before they go out, he takes her to a shitty motel, he doesn't seem to have the same ambition as her, etc. Now, whether or not you think that's a huge deal and enough to make a woman want to leave a man, the point is that that doesn't justify her crying about how they are always fighting and how miserable her life is. We have never seen them fighting before that incident at her office. Maybe the artsy director thought it would be even artsier fartsier if Williams cried about them always fighting when we never actually see them fighting, but for my non artsy fartsy mind, that's bullshit.

While, the flashbacks can be confusing, at times it's a little hard to get a grip on what's happening when, and I have that huge problem with Williams suddenly crying about how they're always fighting when we've never seen them fighting.....

the scenes themselves are done very well. Very very very well. The raw emotion is about as real as you will ever see in a movie, Gosling and Williams are simply brilliant. This is a movie that may actually cause you to think very seriously about stuff in life; I can't remember the last time I saw a movie with emotions as real as this one.


So I had a couple of big problems, one with the structure and one on a big substantive issue I mentioned in the spoilers. Also, sometimes the documentary-like cinematography gets annoying. But the scenes themselves are as powerful as anything you'll see in a movie, and acted brilliantly. If I was forced to give a number rating, it would probably be about an 8/10 but forget numbers, I'll just say this: I'd definitely recommend that you see this movie. You may find it great and you may find it flawed, but IMO there is enough in here to astound you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. I see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Valentine_%28film%29#Rating_controversythe movie was initially given an NC-17 rating -- later successfully appealed down to an R -- for a cunnilingus scene. That is so damn stupid. Nobody is even naked in that scene. Williams is lying in bed with a dress on, Gosling is fully clothed, and he buries his head inside her dress as she oohs and ahhs. With all the sex shown in movies today, does THAT really deserve an NC-17??? The movie also has a doggy-style humping scene, with Williams wearing nothing at all from the waist down, but a fully-clothed depiction of a guy eating out a girl should warrant an NC-17?  Anyway, thankfully, it was ultimately rated R. There is nothing in this movie that is more sexually graphic than a million other R-rated movies

virtually every one of these links has been posted elsewhere, whether on the Once Upon a Time in the West board or the Ennio Morricone board. You created a new thread just to post a single one of these links before http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10835.0

Films like Lonely Are the Brave, Junior Bonner or Hud are post-westerns. They tell what happens to modern cowboys.

I don't think that Hud is a villain. He is an ambivalent guy. And that makes him fascinating, especially when portrayed by a likeable and charismatic actor like Newman.

well, it's a general fact that viewers tend to root for the main character of a movie, period, even when he is not a good guy, and especially if he is a famous actor like Newman.

And you can excuse something here or there that he has done, but by the end of it, you realize he is just an unlikeable bastard.

Let's see: Hud's drunk driving killed his brother (normally, I'd consider that no different than I'd consider any murderer, but his brother presumably knew Hud was drunk and therefore accepted the risks; so maybe it ain't like a typical murder, but it's pretty damn bad). He drinks all day long and unashamedly goes after married women (something many movie heroes do; in and of itself, it wouldn't make you hate him all that much); he is generally a rude, nasty son of a bitch; he is about to rape a woman if she wasn't saved by his nephew; he is a mean bastard to his nephew who never did anything wrong to him, in fact he idolizes him; he is a dishonest person who wants to sell diseased cattle, thereby cheating the buyer and risking starting a cattle epidemic; and he conspires to steal his father's farm from him.

Now, what does Hud have that makes him sympathetic -- I mean the character, not considering that it's played by the famous sexy lovable Paul Newman -- well, he's misunderstood and has daddy issues. His father has never been nice to him.   Well I'm sorry, that's truly an awful thing to have to go through, but you know what, at 34 years old, that's no excuse to be such a bastard to everyone else. At most, that excuses his actions toward his father, but that's all. His attempted rape of a woman is not in any way mitigated by any of his daddy issues.

So yeah, in my book Hud is a bad person, a character worthy only of the audience's contempt. Certainly not all along -- it takes a lot to hate a Paul Newman character, and a while to realize the full extent of his evilness, but yeah, by the end of the movie, Hud is, in my book, an unmitigated, unsympathetic villain. Even if he is played by Paul Newman and fun to watch.

Just saw the movie for the first time (on dvd); I give it an 8/10. (Does anyone else think the image was a bit vertically stretched, the faces may be too tall and skinny?)

For me, the movie succeeds most in its simplest scenes, and fails when it tries to reach too deep for the Freudian stuff. Maybe I didn't get it all. I probably didn't; it was definitely a transitional time in American history and movies. But IMO it reached for something that wasn't there or which it couldn't attain with all the deep stuff, but when it came to the stuff that could simply be enjoyed in the surface, it was beautiful. That scene with Newman and Neal, with the dialogue talking about scratching her itch, that was such a brilliant scene, comparable to the scene with Lee Marvin and Randolph Scott in  the wagon in Seven Men from Now. All the scenes with Neal and Newman, and Neal and de Wilde, and Melvyn Douglas was great, the simple joy of the sing-along to My Darling Clementine in the theater... For me, the movie maybe was trying too hard to reach somewhere deep that it may not have succeeded in, but there is much to enjoy.

Here is a  nice review by Michael Mirasol http://www.rogerebert.com/far-flung-correspondents/a-man-with-inklings-of-a-soul

Mirasol says Newman was surprised that so many viewers sympathized with Hud rather than thinking of him as a villain. Well, I agree with Newman; whatever sympathy I had for Hud was long gone by the end of the movie; I totally consider him a villain here. I don't care what sort of daddy issues he has, there's no excuse for a 34-year old man to be doing what he is.

btw, has anyone scene a 1962 movie called All Fall Down? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055738/?ref_=sr_1   It's also with Brandon de Wilde, and  certain aspects of the story are similar to Hud

p.s. as for whether or not it's a Western; for me, I don't count "contemporary Westerns," it's basically Civil War till Mexican Revolution and that's that. I suppose that if you wanted to count contemporary Westerns, you could count a movie like Lonely are the Brave, which is specifically about a modern-day Western character, but a movie like Hud really could have taken place anywhere; substitute any small town, substitute a man who lost a business other than animals (maybe his factory was forced to close or whatever); if you're gonna call Hud a Western, you can pretty much call any movie that takes place in Texas a Western, regardless of time period...