In 1960s Texas, real estate tycoon Robert Mitchum ("Captain" Wade Hunnicutt) is wounded, by the husband of one of his many feminine conquests, during a hunt. Young handy-man George Peppard (as Raphael "Rafe" Copley) comes to Mr. Mitchum's aide. Nobody talks about the fact, but Mr. Peppard is Mitchum's 22-year-old illegitimate offspring. Mitchum employs Peppard, but does not officially recognize him as a son. Mitchum's "legitimate" son and heir is gangly good-looking 17-year-old George Hamilton (as Theron Hunnicutt). Peppard chain-smokes, swings a rifle, and does other manly things. Mitchum beds women.But, young Mr. Hamilton is known as a "mama's boy." He gets his main nurturing from mother Eleanor Parker (as Hannah). Though still sexy, Ms. Parker keeps her bedroom door locked. The film top-bills Mitchum and Parker, but deals mainly with the "coming of age" story concerning Hamilton's character, how it effects others in the cast, and uncovers buried emotions. Described as "wet behind the ears," Hamilton is taught how to hunt "like a man" by brotherly Peppard. Then, he is encouraged to ask pretty Luana Patten (as Elizabeth "Libby" Halstead) out for a date. Hamilton figures out what to do with her on his own...Beautifully adapted by Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr., from a William Humphrey story, "Home from the Hill" is a surprisingly effective indictment of illegitimacy. Director Vincente Minnelli manages the material exceptionally well, bringing the characters and situations to life; this is absolutely necessary, since the basic story is very often told. Known mostly for his musicals, Mr. Minnelli received award nominations from the "Director's Guild" and "Cannes Film Festival".His theatrically poetic performance won Peppard a "Supporting Actor" award from the "National Board of Review". This group placed the picture at #7 for the year and gave Mitchum a combined "Best Actor" award for "The Sundowners" and "Home from the Hill". Peppard was also nominated by the British Academy and "Film Daily" in supporting and newcomer categories. The later noted Ms. Patten in the juvenile category, but "The New York Film Critics" polled her at #8 as "Best Actress".In the critics' mind, Hamilton seemed to be playing second fiddle to Peppard, but he had just received similar accolades, for "Crime & Punishment, USA" (1959). Hamilton makes you believe he is the naive teenager he is playing. Watch Hamilton in the scene he plays with mother Parker, after several hours on a picnic with girlfriend Patten. From the moment he walks in the door, Hamilton leave you with no doubt about what the couple has been doing. Now, that's "method" acting.******** Home from the Hill (3/3/60) Vincente Minnelli ~ George Hamilton, Robert Mitchum, George Peppard, Eleanor Parker

Just before the counterculture emerged and the anti-hero took hold, Hollywood was still trying to make grand, sweeping, star-studded epics. From this period in the in the very early sixties arose "Home from the Hill." An entertaining and quite engrossing film (even at its almost three hour running time) that just misses being an epic by a smidge.Even though Robert Mitchum gets top billing, it is the "Georges" (Peppard and Hamilton) that get the screen time and it is nice to see both shine. Peppard is great, reminding one of a young Steve McQueen, and shows the promise he possessed prior to falling into schlock films like "The Blue Max" and retreating into the small screen. Hamilton is a revelation. He also shows good acting chops and makes one wonder how he became such a media caricature of himself. Mitchum, well, is Mitchum. Nothing wrong with that, but at times it seems as if he's just going through the motions. Eleanor Parker holds her own, but the women in this film are just window dressing as this movie is really boys about becoming a men.For a man who directed his share of musicals, Vincente Minnelli's direction is a bit static and his staging is at times quite awkward. For instance, the scene where the household discovers Mitchum's character has been shot takes place in the corner of the room, behind a chair. The odd camera angle is from the other side of the room and except for a small push-in, there is no camera movement. Details and character reactions cannot be discerned, the scene just cries out for a close-up of or some type of cut. Perhaps Minnelli just wanted the audience to focus on the seriousness of the entire scene. Or Perhaps growing up with the quick edits of the MTV Generation, I'm expecting too much, probably both.At times the story and the acting can be a bit mawkish, but that was the era. This is still a grand, old, sweeping Hollywood film, a BIG FILM, like they used to make, almost an epic. Going into it with that state of mind you will find yourself immersed in the film and the characters and nearly three hours will have passed before you know it.

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.

Spoiler. This has to be one of Minnelli's worst films. First of all its way too long and not very compelling. The performances are OK, Mitchum was always good, but Eleanor Parker was a very limited, if lovely actress. The plot is silly and unbelievable even for 1960 (which was still really the 50's)and full of stereotypes i.e the town tramp,(played by the very fine character actress Constance Ford, the loyal "negro" servants etc. For an outdoor type of film its very claustrophobic with fake studio sets representing the woods, and is especially glaring in the opening shot. Also the film was so implausible like why the hell did Eleanor Parker stay around if she was so miserable being married to Mitchum, and can you really go along with Preppard agreeing to marry the poor dumb pregnant girlfriend of George Hamilton who walks into the sunset after killing Everett Sloan.