People only seem to praise his performance in the second movie, but I think he was just as good in this one
shareI agree. The scene of him in the hospital, when he's talking to the nurse about moving Vito, that especially sticks with me.
shareWell, risking being bombarded with insults and outright derision, I have to respectfully disagree. I think Pacino is a mediocre actor at best.
IMO, the character of Michael Corleone was just too dynamic to not cause carryover from the character to reality. I generally like Caan, but thought he was mediocre in this as well.
Not a fan of Brando, but I think he crushed it, as did John Casale (Fredo), Abe Vigoda (Tessio), Richard Castellano (Clemenza), and even Talia Shire. While I literally hate DeNiro, I thought he acted circles around Pacino in II.
I think Pacino was fortunately good enough.
Strntz
Don’t worry I am not looking for insults to throw at people
I don’t want any trouble
🤣
shareAl Pacino, mediocre at best - He is in great films but that doesn't make one a great actor but I cant take anyone serious who says he is mediocre, they are either trolling or havent seen him perform in films like Scarface, Carlitos Way, Glengarry Glen Ross, Dog Day Afternoon, Heat, Devils Advocate, Scent of a Woman - these films cover over 20 years, he is amazing can be intense, subtle, emotive, powerful. Ive only seen the first Godfather in that flick alone his character goes on quite a journey and his talent was up to the job.
shareI love both films dearly, but I do agree with you. I like seeing him as a normal guy trying not to be involved in his family's business, but then you start to see subtle changes in him over the course of the first film.
shareHe was better in the first. Much more range.
shareI prefer Pacino in the first film, mainly because he has that juicy arc from good guy into an anti-hero. His performance as Michael in the second film is much more interior.
share