Pacino and De Niro: How the mighty ha...

Pacino and De Niro: How the mighty have fallen

There are 28 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Apr 21, 2008, titled Pacino and De Niro: How the mighty have fallen. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Ithought Francis Ford Coppola was being cranky last fall when he badmouthed Al Pacino and Robert De Niro -- the stars of Coppola's immortal "Godfather" films -- for taking parts for the money and losing their ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Roger This

Mackinaw, IL

#1 Apr 22, 2008
"Pacino declined to talk to me about the film."

But he did talk to Gene Shalit. Here's a piece of what he said.

"I really found myself in this role. It's probably the best thing I've done since 'Dog Day.' If you only see one film this year, see this one."
Florida Jim

Longwood, FL

#2 Apr 22, 2008
I t is sad to see stars of this magnitude doing such tripe. The movies have become "anything for a buck" the question of is it good, is it redeeming, will it enhance my reputation or will it benefit the country is never asked. DeNiro, Pacino, Streisand, Nickleson, Redford have become Adam Sandler and his ilk playing in silly, dirty little movies which degrade themselves and continue to lower our standards as a country.
Red

United States

#3 Apr 22, 2008
Can you confirm that these two have turned down roles which you deem worthy of their talents, in favor of financial windfalls? As great as these actors have been, they didn't write their own movies.
Quit b!tching.
chrisk

Waldorf, MD

#4 Apr 22, 2008
Who? Who? What are you a f**** owl?!
dr no

Latham, NY

#5 Apr 22, 2008
so what is wrong with "doing it for the buck"? it's the world's oldest profession.
Ang

Chicago, IL

#6 Apr 22, 2008
I agree that 88 Minutes was a horrible film, however, I didn't see much wrong with DeNiro's acting. What I did see wrong was horrible writing, two co-lead actresses who seemed fresh off the "Saved By the Bell" acting boat and a terrible plot. Yes, lets make light that DeNiro chose to star in this film, but who wouldn't? The money was outstanding and, quite frankly, the character was rather typical of DeNiro's style of late.

I'd like Hollywood to address its HORRIBLE choices in writing, content, the over-use of re-makes, sequels, etc. Perhaps this lack of fresh, creative entertainment is partly to blame and actors are only choosing from the stale pot from which they have to choose from.
Salsa Shark

Green Bay, WI

#7 Apr 22, 2008
Ang wrote:
I agree that 88 Minutes was a horrible film, however, I didn't see much wrong with DeNiro's acting. What I did see wrong was horrible writing, two co-lead actresses who seemed fresh off the "Saved By the Bell" acting boat and a terrible plot. Yes, lets make light that DeNiro chose to star in this film, but who wouldn't? The money was outstanding and, quite frankly, the character was rather typical of DeNiro's style of late.
I'd like Hollywood to address its HORRIBLE choices in writing, content, the over-use of re-makes, sequels, etc. Perhaps this lack of fresh, creative entertainment is partly to blame and actors are only choosing from the stale pot from which they have to choose from.
Of course you didn't see anything wrong with De Niro's acting--he wasn't in the movie!
Learn How to Drive

United States

#8 Apr 22, 2008
Ang wrote:
I agree that 88 Minutes was a horrible film, however, I didn't see much wrong with DeNiro's acting. What I did see wrong was horrible writing, two co-lead actresses who seemed fresh off the "Saved By the Bell" acting boat and a terrible plot. Yes, lets make light that DeNiro chose to star in this film, but who wouldn't? The money was outstanding and, quite frankly, the character was rather typical of DeNiro's style of late.
I'd like Hollywood to address its HORRIBLE choices in writing, content, the over-use of re-makes, sequels, etc. Perhaps this lack of fresh, creative entertainment is partly to blame and actors are only choosing from the stale pot from which they have to choose from.
Uh, Do you perhaps mean "Pacino"?
Don Killuminati

Monee, IL

#9 Apr 22, 2008
You do expect more out of Pacino and De Niro, but I actually liked 88 minutes, so I think this is just about personal opinions... For 9 million I would do a D rated movie...
lookyhere

Melrose Park, IL

#10 Apr 22, 2008
Ang wrote:
I agree that 88 Minutes was a horrible film, however, I didn't see much wrong with DeNiro's acting. What I did see wrong was horrible writing, two co-lead actresses who seemed fresh off the "Saved By the Bell" acting boat and a terrible plot. Yes, lets make light that DeNiro chose to star in this film, but who wouldn't? The money was outstanding and, quite frankly, the character was rather typical of DeNiro's style of late.
I'd like Hollywood to address its HORRIBLE choices in writing, content, the over-use of re-makes, sequels, etc. Perhaps this lack of fresh, creative entertainment is partly to blame and actors are only choosing from the stale pot from which they have to choose from.
Hey Einstein..it was Pacino in 88 Minutes, not DeNiro.

Glad to know that you saw the movie...NOT!
Oscar

Atlanta, GA

#11 Apr 22, 2008
Every actor has their bad movie, but they still get paid. And one can learn their mistakes or others in a bad film. Directors and the script itself can hurt the actor. I really believe that Hollywood does not have the screenplay writers that they once had back in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Too much of a movie of today is played on violence, sex or special effects. You want scripts that make actors connect with each other, and also to the audience. Bombs, Bullets, Blood and Boobs is what make studios make money. But after awhile, all the movies look the same, and the profits are not there anymore. Back to the basics is what Hollywood might have to do. Many unproven actors, writers and directors are out there, who are looking for a chance.

Who would not want to be Oscar winners like DiNero, Costner, Pacino, Jolie, or a Kidman? Everyone would jump at the chance to trade places with them. And maybe some of the actors would trade places with you because you are much younger, or don't have to go for cancer treatments.

I have three sceenplays waiting for the people who want to produce them. But I do not have the connections or the investors like some insiders have. I don't write stories for certain actors, but I write because there is a story to be told and the script is made to be adapted by an actor who can act. If my screenplays were garbage, I would have dumped them. But the people who only read a couple of pages told me I will be great. Greatness is not my goal, entertainment is.

There are many young actors and veteran actors who are ready for a certain screenplay that would lead them onto the red carpet. If you are an actor, and some unknown wants you to read their script, don't brush them off. You may regret not opening a script and reading the story.

Time will tell if Hollywood wants to take a chance on the talent who are unknown.
Ang

Chicago, IL

#12 Apr 22, 2008
Gee, I guess thinking-one-thing-and-typing- another mistakes aren't allowed. Forgive me for multi tasking while commenting and not noticing my mistake. I bow to all the other Gods within these Internet walls who never make mistakes - I truly envy you all.

I did indeed see the movie (with Pacino) and my comment still stands.
jim

Conroe, TX

#13 Apr 22, 2008
Still would pay to see their movies!
Illiniev1

Grand Rapids, MI

#14 Apr 22, 2008
Good writers exist no more which is why the
movies they make these days are any good!
Nighttrain

New York, NY

#15 Apr 22, 2008
Is there anything coming out of Hollywood worth seeing these days. If it's not a remake of an earlier classic or some cheap production with hype that'll make a buck, there's not much left. Oh sure, every once in a while some real quality surfaces. Too bad more of them are not financial successes. You could say we are getting what we ask for.
Sasha Cohenbread

Niles, IL

#16 Apr 22, 2008
Critics are funny. This article is funny. The point of plays and movies is entertainment. When you watch a movie or a play ask yourself was "I entertained?" Why should anyone care if Pacino or DeNiro make a movie outside of some personal expectation of these men, by some random individuals? I was entertained when I watched "Taxi Driver", I was entertained when I watched "Analyze This",; not so much on Analyze That", but for the Tribune to pay someone to write an article regarding two actors and their choices of acting roles, wow. That is the financial windfall for the author of this story. I wrote this for free and he gets to write his opinion about two older actors, who played pretend in some movies he liked a couple of dozen years ago. And he commands a paycheck, wow.
Anthony C

Chicago, IL

#17 Apr 22, 2008
While I'd never begrudge a person the opportunity to make money, I wonder if actors like DeNiro and Pacino ever think to themsleves "I've got millions upon millions already from the blockbuster-sytle movies. Now maybe I should do some edgy, weird, cool, quirky role, perhaps in a screenplay by some under-the-radar person that no one has ever heard of."

Put Nicholas Cage in the same category. Although younger, hasn't he already made the same smash-up, bombs-going-off, and cars-going-100- mph flick about 10 or more times already? Were Moonstruck, Bringing Out the Dead, Leaving Las Vegas just stepping stones to get to the big-bucks stuff?
times are changing

South Ozone Park, NY

#21 Apr 22, 2008
Well they obviously don't care about preserving any great acting legacy,but then again movies are nowhere near as relevant as they once were in society,so they might as well cash in while they can.People want more interactive forms of entertainment these days instead of just passively watching some crappy movie.There are just too many alternative forms of entertainment now for movies to ever hold the sway they once did,and DeNiro and Pacino surely know it.
yeah

Secaucus, NJ

#22 Apr 22, 2008
88 minutes was a good movie
Get Real

Cary, IL

#24 Apr 23, 2008
Hello, these guys got PAID to do a job. It doesn't matter if it turns out bad or not, they did their best on this job.
Think of them as 'consultants'. They go into a situation (job), interpret things the way management (directors) see fit, give their impression (act) of how it should be and then the final result (edited) is shown to the public.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Al Pacino Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Soap in 'Scent' is Sisters (Oct '06) Mar '17 Lucintheski 53
News Pacino hits the high notes in feel-good 'Danny ... (Apr '15) Apr '15 ivfnurse 2
News Single Person's Movie: Meet the Parents (Feb '09) Feb '15 Terelyn 3
News Marco Rubio says he can win presidential election (Jan '15) Jan '15 Doc Proper 7
News Tom Cruise vs. Jack Nicholson (O'Reilly vs. Oba... (Feb '14) Feb '14 Michelle Bird 1
News December 26 - 28, 2013 (12/26 - 12/28): Target ... (Dec '13) Dec '13 Target Sucks 1
News Al Pacino to Receive AFI Lifetime Honor (Oct '06) Nov '13 TheAfroHedgehog 8
More from around the web