Pacino or de Niro

[Deleted]

Which do you prefer?  

For a while there wasn't much in it, more increasingly I prefer Pacino.  He hasn't whored himself out quite as much as de Niro.  And I'm just fond of his acting, his little mannerisms.  Who do you prefer?  Explanations/clips welcome.

[Mr. FOLLARD]

My two favourite actors, probably. I'd watch them in anything. But Pacino is much more charismatic on- and off-screen, and I think I rate him just that little higher as an actor. I think he's a touch more versatile.

Of course you always get the stuff about him chewing the scenery, and all the 'HOO HAH!' shit (Toby brings this up every single time without fail) but he's managed some great performances right up until last year's The Irishman. He's a dude and a half. I love to watch him.

[Sneelock]

I like 'em both. I've liked them both a long time. I think they have similar strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths: still doing good work. they are focused, engaged actors. they bring a lot of their own personality into their roles. this quality made them both stand out early on and I think both have an impressive body of work.
Weaknesses: "Big Money Acting" I think both have done "big acting" for big paychecks. this can be fun but sometimes it's not.

I'm glad they got around to making "the Irishman". I think it's wonderful to compare and contrast them in the same frame. Pacino has the showier role but DeNiro was acting with his fingernails. Al takes this into account. he needs to play things close to the vest so the movie doesn't go lopsided. splendid movie acting all around.

Quick Fave Al: "Dog Day Afternoon" he is acting with his beads of sweat! everytime he bugs out his eyes it provokes a response. I could watch it 5 times in a row.
Quick Fave RDN: "Brazil" yeah, he's barely in it but DeNiro can be a fun guy and he's not called on to do this a lot.the twinkle in his eye might be the most beautiful thing in that remarkable movie. I'm hearing "we're all in this together" a lot, lately. I think of DeNiro every time I do.

Quick Dud Al: it's hard, isn't it? I was going to say "Dick Tracy" but he's actually a lot of fun in that film & that film needed some fun. I never liked "Scent of a Woman" or "Devil's Advocate" very much. take yer pick.

Quick Dud Bob: "Frankenstein". to be fair - Brando himself couldn't have saved that turkey.

[Deleted]

Neither really interest me these days. If we're talking about their golden period in the 70s then I think Pacino had a little more range but it's very close.

[Mr. FOLLARD]

For the first, and probably ONLY time, I wish Matt Wilson was here...

[Deleted]

The look in Pacino's eyes in Godfather II when he finds out who betrayed him. You cannot teach that level of acting.

[DarknessFish]

Pacino for me. The thing with Dr Niro, he could do bullish, intense and threatening, but with that face and physique it's a bit of a given. Pacino though, had more of an everyman air, and could do wimpish and irritating, too.

Wouldn't often venture out of the 70s with either though. Dr Niro's comedy performances are dreadful, and Al's scenery chewing as he got older is just as bad. Give me Panic in Needle Park, not dross like Devil's Advocate.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2020 10:29:36 GMT DarknessFish said:

Pacino for me. The thing with Dr Niro, he could do bullish, intense and threatening, but with that face and physique it's a bit of a given. Pacino though, had more of an everyman air, and could do wimpish and irritating, too.
.

Doesn't Rupert Pumpkin fit the latter more than the former?

[DarknessFish]

Good point, that's a stand-out performance for De Niro, and I would call it an underrated film if it wasn't for the fact that it seems to get called out as an underrated film very frequently. But he's still not really wimpish, and still quite threatening. Definitely captures irritating quite well.

[Deleted]

DeNiro gives good to great performances all the way up to 2000, when he chose to do The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle..With a few exceptions like Silver Linings Playbook, Robert seems to give up at this point and looks for paychecks.. Pacino seems to lose the narrative around the same time (Simone in 2002 is the signpost) but with Al, it's more about him losing perspective and touch, rather than money..Overall, Al might have a slight edge..

[Mr. FOLLARD]

The charm always comes through with Al. Something like Michael Collins is slight but a great Saturday afternoon watch, leaves you smiling. And no SCENERY CHEWING

[Deleted]

I don't think the star status of both does them any favours in their mature years. There's a tendency for both to go for flashy roles in films where they're brought in to add their " pizzazz". Compare that with someone (to give an example of someone of similar age) like Tommy Lee Jones whose filmography over the last twenty years is far more interesting than either. He's gone for naturalistic performances of real substance, but he's not carrying the same star baggage as Pacino or De Niro.

[Mr. FOLLARD]

Yeah yeah

[DarknessFish]

Jun 22, 2020 9:43:26 GMT Mr. FOLLARD said:

The charm always comes through with Al. Something like Michael Collins is slight but a great Saturday afternoon watch, leaves you smiling. And no SCENERY CHEWING

I did wonder what the fuck you were on about here, until I discovered he made a film called Danny Collins. It's been ages since I've seen Michael Collins, and I was wondering if he played Eamon de Valera or something, I didn't think of it as a feel-good film.

[Mr. FOLLARD]

Sorry!

yeah, that one