I thought so, too. You know Hud, don't you? Incredible masterpiece. Not even talking about the superb cast but every shot is a story on its own and the score (+ how it is used, very minimal)...beautiful. I'm not so sure if the title ain't a bit misleading though.
I've seen Out of the Past multiple times already (note: I'm not so old 😀), pure class too. Today it'll be Shane with Brandon de Wilde (who played Lon in Hud).
I'm going to get slaughtered for this, but I don't think Paul Newman was much of an actor. I hasten to add that I think he was an interesting and generous man, but I found most of his acting to be, at least very least, obvious...and at worst, really trying too hard to be Marlon Brando. As an example, in "Somebody Up There Like Me", all the mumbling and shrugging and aw shucks stuff was just overacting...badly.
He was fine in light comedies that just required him to look gorgeous and wink at the camera a lot. "The Sting" and "Butch Cassidy..." were his meat and potatoes. Look gorgeous, smile slyly, and delivered his lines mainly with his blue, blue eyes.
He was, IMO, pretty good in "The Hustler", and better as he aged, as in "The Color Of Money". He was acceptable (though still overacting) in "The Verdict", but again, you just sat there and watched him obviously "act"...not submerge himself in the character.
All that said, for the most part, I found his films enjoyable, but never forgot, for a moment, that I was watching Paul Newman, not just believing the character he was playing.
Again...I think he was a good guy. Took up racing very seriously at 50+ years, gave away scads of money with his food products, did good stuff for kids...but never once really submerged himself in a role...never once disappeared in a role. That, along with range, characterizes, for me, a good actor.