I think this is probably just as good as "Some Came Running", and the hunting sequence is on an equivalent level of cinematic audacity with the finale of "Running." I'm guessing that not as many people have seen it because there's a lot of appeal to seeing Sinatra, Martin and MacLaine in a nice-looking serious film. But Robert Mitchum's no small shakes either. George Peppard actually seems like a real leading man in the movie, and completely steals it from George Hamilton. I like Hamilton's work quite a bit more the second time around though, and I feel more sympathy for his character.
There are some negatives I suppose. Some of the Texas accents seem strained, and Minnelli is such an alien himself to the whole macho milieu of the film that we're never fully comfortable in the Mitchum character's hunting den. Perhaps that's just as well. Nostalgia or sentimentality might have ruined the film's drama completely. If Howard Hawks had made it, the depiction of the Mitchum character would have become a bit too worshipful.
I was really surprised to read a few of the comments here on IMDb and find out that the character Peppard played wasn't even in the novel. To me, he's just as interesting and important as the Mitchum character, much less the Hamilton character. I've read in other places that Peppard and Minnelli clashed because Peppard was the first method actor Minnelli had worked with. Minnelli was used to being the only one who fussed around and held things up. He liked working with guys like Kirk Douglas who delivered the goods and didn't waste a lot of time thinking about it. But he got a good performance out of Peppard, I would say the best performance I've ever seen from Peppard. If I had seen this movie in 1960, I would have thought Peppard was headed for an awesome career. Apparently MGM was all fired up about him being "the new Spencer Tracy" but I don't exactly see that. I see a really sensitive actor who plays well with the other actresses and actors. I thought he was better in this film than Paul Newman was in "Hud." He was definitely more convincingly blue collar, which you wouldn't think based on "Breakfast at Tiffany's." For the first time I can think of in a Minnelli film however, the female performers don't really hold weight with the male performers. Eleanor Parker seems like she's trying much too hard, although the final scene with Peppard comes off very well. Her character makes little sense and she's not helping any. Luana Patten fails to strike real chemistry with either of her leading men, and seems like a cute ornament in an important role. It's not bad work, just not the type that would compete with the energy of the male stars in the film.
I should say more about Mitchum before closing. This was I believe the second film that Mitchum and Minnelli made together, after "Undercurrent" quite a few years earlier. That film was made when Mitchum was just finding his feet as an actual leading man. His main job in the film is to lurk stylishly in the shadows and look good in a cardigan or a smoking jacket. He has a lot more to do in "Home from the Hill", and he does it well. He has 3 really good scenes with Hamilton and at least one with Peppard. It's interesting how he grows progressively more openly cynical in each confrontation with the "legitimate" son Hamilton, finally telling him that by the time he reaches 40 he'll probably have stepped on a few toes as well. But with Peppard he's cynical from day one. The first and only real scene with the two of them together, he tells him that he should have thrown him to the dogs the day he was born. In the world of that character, it's an odd form of camaraderie, a recognition of the level of honesty that exists between the two of them.
Ultimately it's a movie that makes me happy, but doesn't completely convince me on a dramatic level. It seems to me, maybe just from my observation, that cycles tend to repeat and not reverse themselves. It's very fanciful to think that the Peppard character would end up being a responsible family man and that the Hamilton character would become unhinged and totally run away from all that money. For a movie that has so many cynical characters and speeches, the whole conclusion is pretty rosy. It really requires that you think a lot of the human species. But... it's interesting. It's more fulfilling dramatically than a story that just ends with tragedy or with a predictable and morose depiction of the status quo. I like the Peppard character, so I like the way that things turn out. But it seems improbable, a bit of a handout. Divine justice, not human justice. Maybe dramatic justice. This is really a film that shows off the strengths and weaknesses of melodrama -- the sacrificial lambs march in line, dues are paid and lessons are learned.
There are some negatives I suppose. Some of the Texas accents seem strained, and Minnelli is such an alien himself to the whole macho milieu of the film that we're never fully comfortable in the Mitchum character's hunting den. Perhaps that's just as well. Nostalgia or sentimentality might have ruined the film's drama completely. If Howard Hawks had made it, the depiction of the Mitchum character would have become a bit too worshipful.
I was really surprised to read a few of the comments here on IMDb and find out that the character Peppard played wasn't even in the novel. To me, he's just as interesting and important as the Mitchum character, much less the Hamilton character. I've read in other places that Peppard and Minnelli clashed because Peppard was the first method actor Minnelli had worked with. Minnelli was used to being the only one who fussed around and held things up. He liked working with guys like Kirk Douglas who delivered the goods and didn't waste a lot of time thinking about it. But he got a good performance out of Peppard, I would say the best performance I've ever seen from Peppard. If I had seen this movie in 1960, I would have thought Peppard was headed for an awesome career. Apparently MGM was all fired up about him being "the new Spencer Tracy" but I don't exactly see that. I see a really sensitive actor who plays well with the other actresses and actors. I thought he was better in this film than Paul Newman was in "Hud." He was definitely more convincingly blue collar, which you wouldn't think based on "Breakfast at Tiffany's." For the first time I can think of in a Minnelli film however, the female performers don't really hold weight with the male performers. Eleanor Parker seems like she's trying much too hard, although the final scene with Peppard comes off very well. Her character makes little sense and she's not helping any. Luana Patten fails to strike real chemistry with either of her leading men, and seems like a cute ornament in an important role. It's not bad work, just not the type that would compete with the energy of the male stars in the film.
I should say more about Mitchum before closing. This was I believe the second film that Mitchum and Minnelli made together, after "Undercurrent" quite a few years earlier. That film was made when Mitchum was just finding his feet as an actual leading man. His main job in the film is to lurk stylishly in the shadows and look good in a cardigan or a smoking jacket. He has a lot more to do in "Home from the Hill", and he does it well. He has 3 really good scenes with Hamilton and at least one with Peppard. It's interesting how he grows progressively more openly cynical in each confrontation with the "legitimate" son Hamilton, finally telling him that by the time he reaches 40 he'll probably have stepped on a few toes as well. But with Peppard he's cynical from day one. The first and only real scene with the two of them together, he tells him that he should have thrown him to the dogs the day he was born. In the world of that character, it's an odd form of camaraderie, a recognition of the level of honesty that exists between the two of them.
Ultimately it's a movie that makes me happy, but doesn't completely convince me on a dramatic level. It seems to me, maybe just from my observation, that cycles tend to repeat and not reverse themselves. It's very fanciful to think that the Peppard character would end up being a responsible family man and that the Hamilton character would become unhinged and totally run away from all that money. For a movie that has so many cynical characters and speeches, the whole conclusion is pretty rosy. It really requires that you think a lot of the human species. But... it's interesting. It's more fulfilling dramatically than a story that just ends with tragedy or with a predictable and morose depiction of the status quo. I like the Peppard character, so I like the way that things turn out. But it seems improbable, a bit of a handout. Divine justice, not human justice. Maybe dramatic justice. This is really a film that shows off the strengths and weaknesses of melodrama -- the sacrificial lambs march in line, dues are paid and lessons are learned.