fritziross

I rated this on the quality of film-making, especially dialog & special effects. Based on sheer entertainment value, it's a 7 or better. I haven't had the opportunity to see it with fresh, adult eyes & see just how funny it remains. But when I was about 6 years old, I watched it with my older siblings many times; we found it hysterical.

It's bizarre to me that some reviewers here commented on movie's & Paul Newman character's likeness to "Hud". Apparently smart, violent, conscienceless Hud's just like dimwitted, well-disposed, honest protagonist Jim Kane - not a hero since he's SO dim, it's hard to watch. In fact, I didn't find heartless Hud as disturbing & distracting as brainless Kane.

As for the two movies' similarity: only if finely-drawn characters in a well-constructed plot is just like a story handling all sloppily.

☝🏼 Both featured cattle & Newman.

Newman & Lee Marvin were still kind of fun, & Strother Martin did a fine job. Would've been great to see more of Hector Elizondo.

This movie boasts an excellent cast but only half a script, as though written hastily to meet an impossibly ahort deadline. Can't shake the feeling that it was left unfinished.

Emblematic substitution of an irrelevant porno for a serious, necessary conversation wronged the porno recipient as well as the viewers.

The matriarch's reflexive suicide attempts made no sense, one part of story needing development. Also short-changed were Ray Romano's character and Debra Winger's, given instead cartoonish personalities; Winger's character transformed hers abruptly, as if on a whim.

This could've been a terrific movie, but short-sighted boss(es) decided not to bother pay or wait for more writing. And rating this 6 instead of 5 was probably charity.