Home Forums Movies Poll: Pacino or Pesci

Poll: Pacino or Pesci

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
Created
2 months ago
Last Reply
4 weeks ago
43
replies
2276
views
26
users
thatnerdgreg
6
teri
5
Riley Chow
3
Poll: Pacino or Pesci
Joe Pesci is better in The Irishman
Al Pacino is better in The Irishman
  • Riley Chow
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209573

    Trying again, as the last poll did not seem to work.  I will see if I can merge the replies from the other thread here.

    Reply
    fvg627
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 23rd, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209118

    Not voting because I actually can’t decide. Maybe I will after rewatching.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Dennis El Mar
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 21st, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209122

    I can already tell from the discourse on this film so far that I’m going to be one of the very few Pesci votes, but alas. It’s incredibly close and both are Oscar worthy but Pesci is able to craft a permeating presence in the film and exert his influence without you even knowing he’s doing so. He plays incredibly against type and really blew me away, not that Pacino didn’t as well but in a much different way. Pesci is already being underrated on this forum though, I’ll say that much

    FYC: Mary Kay Place in Diane

    ReplyCopy URL
    boss
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 14th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209137

    Joe Pesci. He should even win.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Keth
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209152

    I voted for Al Pacino but Joe Pesci is also award worthy in “The Irishman.” A movie I really like, but I felt like I’ve seen it before in “Goodfellas” and “The Departed.”

    Pacino should be going for his third Oscar. His first two should have been “The Godfather, Part 2” (sorry Art Carney) and “Dog Day Afternoon” (Nicholson should have won for “The Last Detail” – the wrong Jack won that year). And Denzel Washington deserved two Oscars for his portrayal of “Malcolm X.” To have “A Scent of a Woman” attached to Pacino’s Oscar is one of the Academy’s biggest embarrassments – in my humble opinion.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Victor Cruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 8th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209159

    Pesci. There’s nuance in his performance while there’s barely any in Al Pacinos.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209161
    This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
    Chimichanggas
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 13th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209226

    Can both win in a tie? I’m dying to see this happen.

    𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙙, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪

    ReplyCopy URL
    Foolio
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 24th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209257

    Pacino is fiercely energetic, scenery-chewing and funny. The one problem with his performance is a certain lack of depth. He walks away with his scenes but doesn’t leave the audience – me anyway – with a deeper sensation of what kind of a human being Hoffa was underneath his showy facade.

    Pacino is Pacino to the max here, in many ways a less unbearable version of himself in The Devil’s Advocate. His Jimmy Hoffa has the mannerisms of Al Pacino, not the mannerisms of Jimmy Hoffa.

    Pesci is less showy and more subdued – but he projects a profound sense of a human being made of flesh and blood, and while Pacino impressed me more while I was watching the film, it’s Pesci’s work than crawled under my skin and left a more lasting mark.

    As far as Oscars go, while both have a shot at a nomination, I believe Pacino is the shoo-in as he acts in spades. Can’t see either of them threatening Pitt though.

    In the end this is a case of apples and oranges, so I suppose it’s just as well that I’m for some reason not able to cast a vote in the poll.

    ReplyCopy URL
    mariogomez
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 12th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209275

    Pacino is much better but Pesci is worthy too. It seems that Pacino will win Oscar over Pitt.

    ReplyCopy URL
    thatnerdgreg
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209290

    Not sure if anyone else is having a problem viewing the poll results, but my vote goes to Pacino. I referred to him as a force of nature before, and I stand by that statement. He steals every single scene that he’s in. He’s got so much to work with portraying Jimmy Hoffa, and he knocks each component out of the park.

    However, I still loved Pesci. I’m predicting and hoping he can get nominated alongside Pacino, who I think and hope will win. I was impressed that he could so easily play a role against his type after being in retirement for so long. If it weren’t for Pacino’s presence, I think Pesci would be seen as a much stronger contender.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Marcus Snowden (The Artist Formerly Known as msnowden1)
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 18th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209294

    Pacino, but DAMN it’s close. Pacino is larger than life in the movie, but Pesci is measured but also intimidating. I don’t mind who wins this poll.

    ReplyCopy URL
    cracker of whips, bringer of jocks
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 2nd, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209348

    Pacino is showy but Pesci is multi-layered and subtle. Depends on what your criteria for a better performance is but I prefered Pesci marginally more. Honestly, the difficulty in establishing who was better is just a testament to how incredible this film is. Would love to see it or Parasite win.

    ReplyCopy URL
    thatnerdgreg
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209421

    I’d just like to say that I thought Pacino’s work was multi layered as well, despite being much bigger and showier.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Hector Raskolnikov
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 8th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203209427

    What’s the deal with this stupid myth that a showy performance automatically means no or almost none subtlety or nuance? Where did your guys get that from? I have the impression that some people consider a more reserved performance is naturally better, deeper and more difficult than a more showy one, which is laughable. This’s not true at all, there is no rule about it.

    Pacino’s performance has MANY nuances and subtleties, even more than Pesci (an amazing performance too), I’d say. Although he is extremely energetic and charismatic, he shows, at key moments, a subtle vulnerability and even fear in his Jimmy Hoffa. The Frank Tribute dinner scene is the best example of this. Pay attention to his voice and expressions in the conversation with Frank.

    Pesci also has many nuances and subtleties, but this side of Russell is much more apparent and evident. It is clear from the beginning that the character hides things, is more reserved e etc. This, naturally, creates a subtlety for the character that Pesci exploits very well, but it’s a more obvious subtlety. You get what I mean? And with Jimmy Hoffa, Pacino exploits a hidden and unexpected subtlety.

    This “showy performance? No subtlety or nuance then” nonsense has also been used to devalue Joaquin’s Joker performance. It’s such a stupid and false criticism.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Chris B... - Jan 22, 2020
Movies
arabian - Jan 22, 2020
Movies
Eden - Jan 22, 2020
Movies