Fabulous bleak and dusty look to this film, interesting characters. Great acting and direction - the story could easily have been told in an overdramatic, stereotypical way - instead the characters reveal themselves as events play out but you never really get under the surface of all that must have gone on before and are left to wonder about their futures. Although this is set in a very particular time and place the relationships it portrays are timeless. Fantastic.

Although not entirely necessary, I highly recommend watching Shane (1953) before this because Brandon De Wilde stars in both films as the impressionable youngster; their endings are a complete reversal of each other, enhancing Hud's coming-of-age message as well as placing a capstone on the prior decades' Westerns. The smart script also darkly forewarns of the changing landscape of the American West and corporate takeover. The photography is beautiful, and Newman is charismatically despicable.

Worth a look for Melvyn Douglas alone, in one of the greatest performances ever captured on film.

81.875

Good performances hampered by plodding direction.

this is probably the most unique looking black and white film and i'm not quite sure why. i can't actually find a reason to lower the score any either, it's probably one of the best westerns ever made.

Nice take on the "end of the western" concept coupled with a strong character study. Both parts work pretty well side by side, and Newman does a really good job.

a fairly good, yet bleak watch. kind of a neo-western in the vein of "the misfits". i totally enjoyed this movie, although i though it ended about twenty minutes after it should have. newman's character is a tremendous personality that i can neither pity nor enjoy.

I liked it a lot, it looks great and Paul Newman is excellent as the apathetic, selfish, subtly menacing figure, but it is a hard film to love - it feels, with its slickness and detached sensibility, like it is refusing to let you see its emotions. Like it is imitating the masculinity of its characters by just the same remaining cold, unfeeling and refusing to cry.

Excellent acting and dialogue from characters to love and hate. Feels like 'A Street Car Named Desire' relocated to the US Southwest.

A very well-written western that has some strong performances. Newman is excellent as an unrepentant jackass, and the rest of the cast does a fine job as well.

This is yet another Oscar worthy performance by Paul Newman. The supporting cast is also great here. This is the first time I have ever seen a bunch of cows in a big pit before in a movie.

Literally every line of dialogue in this film is a cliche. Very overrated.

A very memorable, well-acted and sharply composed character study of a pretty bad guy (few protagonists are this unlikeable), the coming-of-age tale of his nephew and a family tragedy all in one, documented by Howe in glorious black-and-white images. Structurally, 'Hud' reminded me of a great stage play, and I mean that in the best possible way.

Great characters, great performances.

Pretty unsatisfying movie where not much happens. They should've named the movie Alma and just focused on that character because she was infinitely more interesting than Hud could ever be. Also features that annoying little shit kid from Shane in another terrible role. When I wasn't getting annoyed by Newman's character doing the same thing repeatedly I just found it remarkably dull.

Hud is not even an anti-hero -- he's really a villain. To his credit, Newman plays the character as a complex, pragmatic pessimist strangled by the ethics of the time and place he inhabits rather than as a caricature. It's pathetically heartbreaking to see everyone leave him, one by one, in the film's third act, even if he sort of both deserves and wants it.

An unexpected masterpiece. This is a "last days of the West" tale amongst classics such as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Once Upon a Time in the West, except here instead of telling the story of the end of savagery and murder in a barren, chaotic desert, it bemoans the death of the man who took the earth in his hands and made something out of it with which he could carry a sense of pride. The writing is as close to perfection as you can get, spoken beautifully by a host of great actors.

Truly great movie and Newman is as great as always, if not better. But what I really loved is the photography. You could literally take any shot from this movie, print it and put it on your wall.

Newman is pretty good, but this movie is just too stiff and stagey for me.

Paul Newman has never been hotter

Not a happy movie.

I came away from this film not liking Paul Newman. It's hard not to like Paul Newman. In Hud he convinces you with ease that he's a real scumbag. Brilliant, dark film.

I'm afraid I'm never found Paul Newman attractive. I think that eroded my ability to see this movie as being as awesome and worthwhile as a lot of people believe it is. He was just a horrible, selfish jerk, and the film doesn't even really tell you why. Very unsatisfying. Excellent performances, though.

Possibly worth 85.

Very good film about a total scuzbag. About as daring as daring was back in those days, and one of the landmarks that showed the Hays Code's days were numbered

My favorite film: intelligent, beautifully acted, and subtle in ways uncommon to 1963.

This is Paul Newman in peak form, all dark swagger and explosive sexuality as ne'er-do-well Texas ranch hand who bucks against his family. Ritt's camera soaks in the Texas landscape and cinematographer James Wong Howe brings a crisp beauty to the black and white images. This is also the film that earned Patricia Neal an Oscar for her pitch-perfect performance as a woman almost amused by her own world-weariness.