Pacino or De Niro

[illone]

Hold on, Slappy. So you are taking Depp over both of them? Wow. Are you Johnny Depp himself with a major ego problem? Sure, he played a pirate and banged out 21 Jump Street, and I give him props for that....but don't even TRY to insinuate that Johnny frickin' Depp can hang with the Godfather, and Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, and countless other Hollywood epics. Just stop it already. If he is in your family, that is cool, homie is a talented actor, but Holy Christ, don't try to put him up with the classics. Donnie Brasco was damn good, but it was more because of Pacino. Learn it, know it, live it.

You still didn't list three roles that prove De Niro or Pacino's diversity over Depp.

See, you just proved my point. You call De Niro and Pacino classics. Clearly there is a bias there. Obviously you don't have an open mind to acting as a whole, and maybe you only like action movies. Without even thinking, you've not even considered Depp as a viable actor. Have you seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? How about Blow, or Finding Neverland? Watch those three movies and ask yourself if Pacino or De Niro could pull off those roles. Depp out shined Pacino in Donnie Brasco, not the other way around. Pacino just had to play himself. Depp had more lines, and more scenes in which he actually had to act.

I already posted that De Niro and Pacino have made better overall movies. Look at the roles they both played in those movies, though. It was nothing extremely different from the previous roles. De Niro is one of my faves because he can play a tough guy better than anyone, but can he also play a lunatic chocolate psycho? How many biographies has either of them done? Yes, Raging Bull counts, but again he played a tough guy:laugh:

And Pacino, always playing that edgy role with a good amount of yelling and intensity. He does that well, but again, not much range with his characters. Let's see, he was Satan himself. Intense, and edgy. A blind ex-Army Colonel, again intense and edgy. Oh, wait, a football coach! Yep, intense and edgy.

Again, I challenge you to name three roles which showcase De Niro or Pacino as having better acting ability than Depp. And don't mention Godfather, Goodfellas, or Raging Bull as none of those prove anything. Great movies, clearly. But doesn't prove anything as far as diversity and range with roles.

[Tarhog]

You still didn't list three roles that prove De Niro or Pacino's diversity over Depp.

See, you just proved my point. You call De Niro and Pacino classics. Clearly there is a bias there. Obviously you don't have an open mind to acting as a whole, and maybe you only like action movies. Without even thinking, you've not even considered Depp as a viable actor. Have you seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? How about Blow, or Finding Neverland? Watch those three movies and ask yourself if Pacino or De Niro could pull off those roles. Depp out shined Pacino in Donnie Brasco, not the other way around. Pacino just had to play himself. Depp had more lines, and more scenes in which he actually had to act.

I already posted that De Niro and Pacino have made better overall movies. Look at the roles they both played in those movies, though. It was nothing extremely different from the previous roles. De Niro is one of my faves because he can play a tough guy better than anyone, but can he also play a lunatic chocolate psycho? How many biographies has either of them done? Yes, Raging Bull counts, but again he played a tough guy:laugh:

And Pacino, always playing that edgy role with a good amount of yelling and intensity. He does that well, but again, not much range with his characters. Let's see, he was Satan himself. Intense, and edgy. A blind ex-Army Colonel, again intense and edgy. Oh, wait, a football coach! Yep, intense and edgy.

Again, I challenge you to name three roles which showcase De Niro or Pacino as having better acting ability than Depp. And don't mention Godfather, Goodfellas, or Raging Bull as none of those prove anything. Great movies, clearly. But doesn't prove anything as far as diversity and range with roles.

I don't think you can make the 'range and diversity' argument, and then tell the guy what examples he can and can't use You can cherry-pick performances and compare, but every good actor has their good and less-stellar moments. You commented on 'Donnie Brasco' and how Depp outshone others in that role. The movie was ABOUT Donnie Brasco - I mean, come on, Depp was front and center in the movie playing the lead character. By definition the drama in that movie all revolved around the tension between Depp's character's truth, that he was a cop, and what he began to feel, loyalty and empathy for the supposedly despicable characters around him. Thats a poor example. Pacino did what he could in a by definition limited role.

I'll give you some examples of great acting showing range for both guys:

Pacino: Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Frankie and Johnny, Scarface.

De Niro: Bang the Drum Slowly, Deer Hunter, Midnight Run, Frankenstein

Ultimately though, this is kind of a silly conversation on all ends of the argument. Every good actor has strengths and weaknesses. You place a lot of emphasis on stretching and versatility, others place importance on body of work, how many great films an actor has contributed to.

I still say Dustin Hoffman blows all 3 of these guys away

[Kosher Ham]

I agree. Hoffman for the win.

Easily.

[eagles78]

Serpico... ?

Dog Day Afternoon... ?

...and Justice for All... ?

Scarface is a pop-culture pimple on the ass of Pacino's career, popular only because people who glamorize the "gangsta'" lifestyle embrace it.

Pacino has actually said that Scarface represents the best work of his career.

As for the question, I'm not sure, but I'd probably have to go with Pacino. I like both a lot, but Michael Corleone is probably my favorite character from a movie ever. De Niro is great too though. Any time a guy puts on 75 pounds to play a part in a movie, as De Niro did in Raging Bull, that's dedication.

[RammsteinSkins]

Tie, Pacino has been in better movies but De Niro is a better actor

[illone]

Thats a poor example. Pacino did what he could in a by definition limited role.

I only commented on that because tizzod above said Pacino did a better job in that movie.

I'll give you some examples of great acting showing range for both guys:

Pacino: Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Frankie and Johnny, Scarface.

De Niro: Bang the Drum Slowly, Deer Hunter, Midnight Run, Frankenstein

Midnight run is a horrible example. He plays a typical tough guy in that flick. What was he an ex-cop turned bounty hunter?:laugh:

Frankenstein is another poor choice. De Niro had very few lines in that one.

I'll have to watch Bang the Drum again. It's been years since I've seen it. I'll que it on my 'to watch' list, though. Deer Hunter is probably one of his best movie roles.

As far as Pacino is concerned, you can add Serpico and Scarface to the gritty intense lineup that he is known for. Dog Day afternoon I saw when I was very young. I'll watch it again.

Even with those movies in mind, I don't see how De Niro or Pacino quite has the diversity of Depp. I think both Al and Bobby have a very strong screne presense, which commonly is mistaken for actual acting.

As far as Hoffman is concerned, maybe in the 60's and 70's he was great. :laugh:

[illone]

Ultimately though, this is kind of a silly conversation on all ends of the argument. Every good actor has strengths and weaknesses. You place a lot of emphasis on stretching and versatility, others place importance on body of work, how many great films an actor has contributed to.

Throwing in the towel already?

:laugh:

[Tarhog]

I only commented on that because tizzod above said Pacino did a better job in that movie.

Midnight run is a horrible example. He plays a typical tough guy in that flick. What was he an ex-cop turned bounty hunter?:laugh:

Frankenstein is another poor choice. De Niro had very few lines in that one.

I'll have to watch Bang the Drum again. It's been years since I've seen it. I'll que it on my 'to watch' list, though. Deer Hunter is probably one of his best movie roles.

As far as Pacino is concerned, you can add Serpico and Scarface to the gritty intense lineup that he is known for. Dog Day afternoon I saw when I was very young. I'll watch it again.

Even with those movies in mind, I don't see how De Niro or Pacino quite has the diversity of Depp. I think both Al and Bobby have a very strong screne presense, which commonly is mistaken for actual acting.

As far as Hoffman is concerned, maybe in the 60's and 70's he was great. :laugh:

Ah well, theres no arguing taste.

I suggested 'Midnight Run' because its obviously a comic role, and 'Frankenstein' precisely because its a non-speaking role.

Have you ever seen 'Little Big Man' or 'Straw Dogs'? I'd highly recommend both. You'll come away with a different view of Hoffman. The reason he's done so little of note is because of the fixation with looks Hollywood now has....my opinion anyway.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think De Niro is more talented. I just saw Cape Fear, which was great.

For some reason though, I'd get more excited about a Pacino movie, though.

Whatever. You can hardly lose either way you go.

[illone]

The reason he's done so little of note is because of the fixation with looks Hollywood now has....my opinion anyway.

There is something to be said for that, actually. How else would Jessica Alba get a job if not for her looks? :laugh:

That girl couldn't act if her life depended on it.

Back to the other thing... Range is important, but only if you can pull it off. Depp has proven time and time again that he can act in any role. Look at his body of work. While they might be less than impressive stories compared to De Niro or Pacino's body of work, take notice of the actual roles that he has conquered.

Most poeple would rather sit down and watch "Heat" or "Any Given Sunday" than anything Depp has done, simply because they are good stories. The paying audience doesn't decide who the best actor is, though, only who the best PAID is. Hell, Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time. That doesn't mean it was the best movie.

[Tarhog]

There is something to be said for that, actually. How else would Jessica Alba get a job if not for her looks? :laugh:

That girl couldn't act if her life depended on it.

Back to the other thing... Range is important, but only if you can pull it off. Depp has proven time and time again that he can act in any role. Look at his body of work. While they might be less than impressive stories compared to De Niro or Pacino's body of work, take notice of the actual roles that he has conquered.

Most poeple would rather sit down and watch "Heat" or "Any Given Sunday" than anything Depp has done, simply because they are good stories. The paying audience doesn't decide who the best actor is, though, only who the best PAID is. Hell, Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time. That doesn't mean it was the best movie.

I hear you on that. One of my favorite Eastwood flicks is 'The Beguiled'. Ask 100 people if they've seen it or can tell you about it, you'd maybe get 1 or 2 who had. And I watch a lot of quirky films. I'll have to give Depp a clean slate and see if maybe I am wrong about him.

[Sticksboi05]

There is something to be said for that, actually. How else would Jessica Alba get a job if not for her looks? :laugh:

That girl couldn't act if her life depended on it.

Back to the other thing... Range is important, but only if you can pull it off. Depp has proven time and time again that he can act in any role. Look at his body of work. While they might be less than impressive stories compared to De Niro or Pacino's body of work, take notice of the actual roles that he has conquered.

Most poeple would rather sit down and watch "Heat" or "Any Given Sunday" than anything Depp has done, simply because they are good stories. The paying audience doesn't decide who the best actor is, though, only who the best PAID is. Hell, Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time. That doesn't mean it was the best movie.

I cannot believe this country wanted to see Titanic more than movies like, well almost any other good movie.

[Mark The Homer]

I vote for De Niro

[China]

I hear you on that. One of my favorite Eastwood flicks is 'The Beguiled'. Ask 100 people if they've seen it or can tell you about it, you'd maybe get 1 or 2 who had. And I watch a lot of quirky films. I'll have to give Depp a clean slate and see if maybe I am wrong about him.

Dude, lay off the 'shrooms.

[AJWatson3]

De Niro. It would have been Pacino except for the fluff movies he started making. Like the one of the Computerized Model... what gives?

[smoke-n-mirrors]

They are both awesome! Right up there with Clint Eastwood!

[Chachie]

I suggested 'Midnight Run' because its obviously a comic role, and 'Frankenstein' precisely because its a non-speaking role.

Tarhog- You may want to check out 'Frankenstein' again. It was definitely not a non-speaking role.

[Mark The Homer]

(standing alone in front of mirror)

"Are you talking to me? Are YOU talking to ME???

(shrugs)

"I don't see anybody else here..."

[jrockster21]

I'm not saying Johnny Depp is without any talent. But one of the greats? Thats beyond laughable. Was is his riveting performance in 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', 'Sleepy Hollow', or 'Edward Scissorhands' that sealed the deal? :laugh:

Edward Scissorhands is a great movie, and Depp was phenomenal in it. Sleepy Hollow was a not-so-great movie that Depp carried.

Charlie and the Chocolate factory blew though.

Depp is indeed one of the greatest of our time, and his range is way wider than Pacino and De Niro combined. Tell me another actor who could have pulled off both Sir James Matthew Barrie AND Hunter S. Thompson, and done it so phenomenally.

As to the thread question - I prefer Pacino. But only because Carlito's Way, Scent of a Woman and The Godfather are three of my favorite movies.

[rincewind]

I still say Dustin Hoffman blows all 3 of these guys away

Agreed. I would take Ed Norton from 'this generation' over any of them also.

[Die Hard]

Agreed. I would take Ed Norton from 'this generation' over any of them also.

Depp is a good actor and I respect how he chooses his roles.... I'm just not a big fan of the particular movies he has been in.

Ed Norton would rank as one of my favorites too... and now same with Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is solid too (Gangs of New York, Gilbert Grape, Basketball diaries, Departed, the Aviator).

[jrockster21]

Agreed. I would take Ed Norton from 'this generation' over any of them also.

Norton, really? He's excellent, don't get me wrong, but he's no Depp. Although I don't think anyone else could have done AHX as well as Eddie did.

Personally, I list the actors of our generation in this order*:

1. Denzel Washington

2. Johnny Depp

3. Leonardo DiCaprio

4. Tom Hanks

5. Pacino

*subject to change.

[rincewind]

Norton, really? He's excellent, don't get me wrong, but he's no Depp. Although I don't think anyone else could have done AHX as well as Eddie did.

Personally, I list the actors of our generation in this order*:

1. Denzel Washington

2. Johnny Depp

3. Leonardo DiCaprio

4. Tom Hanks

5. Pacino

*subject to change.

All depends on what you consider 'our generation'. Norton's range is just so spectacular. The role he played in Rounders was incredible and SO far from what he did in American History X.

[rictus58]

Val Kilmer is an underrated actor. He deserves some consideration.

[Kosher Ham]

Lets not forget Norton in Fight Club, 25th Hour, and The Illusionist, as well.

Depp is in no way a better actor than Norton.