Like Charles Foster Kane, Jonas Cord is far more dashing and virile than the fellow this film carefully avoids claiming he was actually based on.

Harold Robbins' trashy 1961 bestseller cashing in on the late fifties fascination with the Roaring Twenties erupted into this Technicolor nonsense with a once in a lifetime cast (it was the debut of Elizabeth Ashley and the posthumous swansong of Alan Ladd). George Peppard is a much more rugged adventurer than the man it's not based on (who's actual story just continued to get weirder and weirder for another ten years after this version abruptly ends).

The "trash" comment above was not meant as an insult, but more a description of the style film. This was never intended as a subtle or Oscar-winning film, but instead deliberately focused on the salacious and seamy--providing a soap opera-like viewing experience.

George Peppard stars as a Howard Hughes knockoff. The parallels are so many that the film is, in some ways, similar to CITIZEN KANE--as it is a veiled and slightly changed biography--dissimilar enough that it was above lawsuits for slander--but still awfully close to the real life of Hughes. Unlike KANE, the Carpetbaggers is NOT a great film, but is entertaining nonetheless.

Like Hughes, Peppard's character was driven by a manic desire for success and relationships with others were, at best, problematic. His amoral outlook of "the ends justifies the means" and his workaholism generated little love for him by his employees and when it came to women, he was a complete failure--seeming to have no sexual desire and an aversion to intimacy. The bottom line is that money and power were his goals--period. The impact of this coldness was the best part of this film, but it also provided some of the seamier story elements. Unfortunately, this driven aspect of Peppard's character was totally undone by a silly and impossible to believe conclusion, since it just wasn't true to his character. Along the way for a VERY bumpy ride were Caroll Baker, Alan Ladd (in his last film) and Elizabeth Ashley (playing one of the few likable characters in the film).

Overall, the film has little depth or lasting value, but LOTS of entertainment value as well as one of the better fight scenes in film (towards the very end). Not at all great, but also not bad either.

Howard Hughes? Not really. George Peppard sketches a character without ever inhabit him. It's all effect. Carroll Baker, the brilliant Baby Doll, surrenders to the marketing demands and she revisits her aggressively sexual creature with more sparkle but less depth. Alan Ladd is the one that touches personal buttons and he is wonderful. Edward Dmytryck doesn't find a real center to Harold Robbins melodrama. Elizabeth Ashley's character exemplifies what I'm trying to say. Her journey is quite simply, absurd. She loves him and she hates him in a surprisingly unpredictable pattern. Absurd to such point that's not even entertaining but irritating. - As a side note, I had the experience to watch this movie on TCM with 5 twentysomethings - They laughed and laughed as if it was a hysterical comedy - I asked them what was so funny and their replay was, everything.