This was a mediocre movie considering its high rating of 7.8. The only great thing about it was Pacino's performance. Actually, the charterer he performed was very challenging and the whole movie depended on his acting. Yet, as I was seeing the movie, I couldn't help but wonder that this was a perfect role for another actor and he could do it even better than Pacino. Its only my opinion but I think the role was made for
De Niro had his turn at playing Frank Slade in 'Men of Honor'.
The only other person I'd have been interested in seeing play Frank Slade would have been Jack Nicholson. That being said, this role was made for Pacino. The eagerness to seize the day, like the scene where he's singing while getting fitted for a suit, or little moments, like when he asks Charlie, "What the *beep* do you know about pain?" just have particular emotions to them that only Pacino could do.
"Don't cry, it is to be; in time I'll take away your miseries and make 'em mine... D'Evils."
Ya.. Jack Nicholson actually was the first choice for the role.... It seemed to me that Pacino overacted in some scenes..... I thought he was so full in control all the time that he couldn't successfully portray the woes of a blind man....
I agree. Pacino was nothing less than incredible in this feature, he was made for it. But the only actor I could think of who would also pull the part is Gary Oldman. I don't think De Niro and Nicholson could be as great.
De Niro gets that rep/stereotype because of the movies that he was in that everyone knows that won/nominated for awards. For a different look at him see the following to see non-"De Niro" charectors for a more versatile side of him:
Stanley and Iris The Awakening Jackie Brown Brazil reply share