Not sure which I would necessarily recommend next, but if you already more or less like Hill's style and feel, The Great Waldo Pepper might be a treat. I can't even understand any producers agreeing to fund this movie, or audience members ca. 1975 wanting to go and see it, but it is maybe the most Hill movie of all of them, from my experience.
Hawaii, on the other hand, which I watched last night, was decent and fine and all, but it feels like any contemporaneous director in Hollywood could've made it. Doesn't feel like a Hill flick at all. Sort of like what people say about "Kubrick's" Spartacus I suppose.
Hawaii is also another example (following Period of Adjustment which I watched the other day) of the woke young person crowd shitting on movies for being sexist and colonialist and racist, and overall unacceptable for decent society, when they're "actually" criticising these things. Now, I don't think "but they don't realise that it's actually a satire" is automatically an excuse on its own, if a flick is just crass and distasteful to a fault... but calling Hawaii colonialist? When the entire, right-on-the-nose point of the movie is that colonialism is bad? Am I missing some 26-dimensional chess move here?