Jump to content

Is Al Pacino an overrated actor?


Is Al Pacino an overrated actor?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Al Pacino an overrated actor?



Recommended Posts

No way. Sure his Oscar winning performance in Scent of Woman wasn’t great, but it is impossible to watch Irishman, Angels in America, Charlitos Way, Godfather, Insomnia (and the list goes on and on) and think that he is overrated. He was great in fricking Jack and Jill for heavens sake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

To me, Al Pacino always plays the same role: Al Pacino.

Very similar what I think, when I watch Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp always is Johnny Depp. But I like watching him, usually. 

Like with Al Overacting Pacino.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AC1 said:

Al Pacino never could have played Oskar Schindler.

True but it doesn't make of him an overrated actor.

I don't think that Brad Pitt could have played Oskar Schindler however he is a freaking good actor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

 

Like with Al Overacting Pacino.

 

 

Al Pacino only started to act and behave like he knows he's an iconic actor at a certain point in his career. He didn't overact in the '70s. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

To me, Al Pacino always plays the same role: Al Pacino.

 

He often does, and he does it well. That makes him not the most versatile actor, but that doesn't mean he isn't good. He's great when doing his signature thing (extreme example: The Devil's Advocate), great when he mixes it up (Carlito's Way with a Pureto Rican accent), and sometimes he does a different thing and is also good (The Merchant of Venice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Pacino's career as being closely parallel to Jack Nicholson's. They did their most interesting work in the 1970s and then, around the start of the new decade, each gave a great, iconic performance with everything turned up to 11; after those, in both of their cases, the subsequent roles feel like varying shades of a well-established persona.

 

De Niro is not entirely dissimilar, but his roles were more varied and his most interesting period lasted a lot longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, May the Force be with You said:

Looking for Richard is IMO the movie that shows the best how incredible Al Pacino is:

  • great direction
  • great script
  • great acting

One can't be overrated after that

 

 

I wasn't asking about directing and scripting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He sometimes overacts, but I don't think he's overrated. Too many stellar performances for that. Even recently, I thought he was incredible in The Irishman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

So you judge his entire career based on one movie?

Nope just taking this movie from the 90's as an example for his talent

I could also quote The Godfather part. I and II, Serpico, Scarface, Carlito's Way, Heat, The Insider, Insomnia or Ocean's Thirty... Okay maybe not the last one where he's just Al Pacino

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Pacino is certainly not the most versatil actor because of his too strong attachment to Michael Carleone and Tony Montana who are both Mafioso but that doesn't make of him an overrated actor that's just what I'm saying

 

Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Anthony Hopkins, Robert DeNiro, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Redford, James Stewart, John Wayne, Gene Hackman, Meryl Streep, Katharine Hepburn, Frances McDormand or Emma Stone have often all similar roles but that doesn't make of them overrated actors.

 

They are stars with strong personality so that obviously reflects in their choice of careers and the resemblance of their roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan, but generally in a movie, he does his things.

 

I mainly retain his presence in The Godfather, Scent of a Woman and recently in The Irishman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When given the right material, or challenged by the right director, he can prove his versatility. The Quad Cinema here in NY did a retrospective of his work a few years back, and it was full of roles that even most film buffs were not aware of. He even portrayed an actor with a Cockney accent in the 90s, for crying out loud!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

I love Pacino in a lot of stuff, but I agree with those who say he's not the most versatile of actors. Those performances of his that are quiet, reserved and cameleon-like (The Godfather and its sequel come to mind) are the ones where I feel the director is holding him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call him overrated because of that though. Nobody I know praises him as a greatly *versatile* actor, just one who is great at what he does. That sounds about correctly rated to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you lot are talking about. Pacino is an amazing actor. And it's selling him a little short to say he doesn't have versatility. He does, but at the same time have doesn't need to have the versatility of Daniel Day Lewis or Meryl Streep to be a great actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AC1 said:

Al Pacino never could have played Oskar Schindler.

 

Could have Harry Ford played him? He was the original choice, and he himself declined the part, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably one of the few people who prefers the chronological "Godfather Saga", which I love, to the individual films, probably because that's the first version of the story I saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I wouldn't call him overrated because of that though. Nobody I know praises him as a greatly *versatile* actor, just one who is great at what he does. That sounds about correctly rated to me.

 

That's fair, but he does have a tendency to overact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AC1 said:

Perhaps we forgot, but this movie, where he was horribly miscast, almost ended his career:

 

I believe he was also in the running for the Han Solo part, and I don't right he was right for that role, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say he is "perfectly rated" as the brilliant actor he is. He's not my favourite, but his accolades are deserved, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I believe he was in the running for the Han Solo part, and I don't right he was right for that role, either.

 

Oh yeah that would have been awful.  Character actors, or just those with a strong screen presence, are never good for the Luke Skywalker/Harry Potter/Frodo Baggins (and soon to be Paul Atredies) roles. Those roles, which can be tough because they're more reacting to the big events they get swept into, require a kind of blankness (for lack of a better term) in service of the story which you wouldn't get with someone like Pacino, who just has too strong a screen presence for roles like that.

 

And as fun as it would have been to see, Pacino also would have sounded really silly saying George's dialogue, which after all is easier to write than to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Character actors, or just those with a strong screen presence, are never good for the Luke Skywalker/Harry Potter/Frodo Baggins

 

Well, it was for the Han Solo role, which is older and more world-wise and does lend itself a little bit more to "stunt casting" than the callow youth role of a Luke or a Potter, but your point is well-taken.

 

As far as I can tell (and, per usual, unlike what Lucas' hagiographies would suggest) Lucas did want a big name not in the Obi Wan role (Sure, people knew and revered Sir Alec Guinness, but his name wasn't putting butts in seats) but in the Han Solo role: Pacino, Stallone, Burt Reynolds, Kurt Russel, James Caan and Christopher Walken were all considered. It just didn't pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Well, it was for the Han Solo role


Oh that’s right. Yeah, I could see him more for Solo than Skywalker, but I think the other issues would remain.

 

Either by design or luck, it worked out best for George that three relative unknowns ended up in those roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Either by design or luck, it worked out best for George that three relative unknowns ended up in those roles.

 

It did.

 

But, of course, his hagiographies would then present the situation as if he had always wanted unknowns for all the main roles and that Guinness was the requisite "big star" casting.

 

That's just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AC1 said:

Perhaps we forgot, but this movie, where he was horribly miscast, almost ended his career

I kinda like REVOLUTION.

It's not exactly the best film ever made, but it has some good production values.

The score is brilliant.

I'm not sure why, but a part of me is drawn to unsuccessful films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.