>* His post '70s career has been better than Hoffman and De
>Niro.

This is a baffling point to me. As I pointed out above, one could debate De Niro was *better* in the 80s than in the 70s: Pacino doesn't have a single performance after the 70s on par with Raging Bull... or maybe even King of Comedy. Or OUATIA. Or Goodfellas.

Pacino famously became the scream-and-spit actor he has remained to this day starting with Scarface and for damn near everything going forward from there. Sometimes, it's been used beautifully (Glengarry, Scent of a Woman), but often times it can be a little much, to put it mildly.

I'd agree that Pacino post 70s beats Hoffman post 70s, but again, one could argue that Tootsie and Death of a Salesman are just as good if not better performances than anything Pacino did post 70s. Not sure I'd make that argument, but I'd absolutely listen to it.

>* The only one to do film, television and theatre
>successfully.

This is blatantly false, as Hoffman is a heralded theatre actor, and Luck was a terrific TV series anchored by Hoffman's terrific performance.

>* Doesn't phone it in as much as De Niro.

De Niro and Pacino both started phoning it in and cashing checks around 2000, and De Niro works more often, so, sure, in that regard. But Pacino's percentage of phoned-in cinematic performances is probably just as high as De Niro's.

>* Does more interesting stuff than Hoffman.

After, say, 1985, no question, but before then, there's an easy argument to be made for Hoffman regarding range of material tackled.

>* Ever seen De Niro or Hoffman do Shakespeare? EXACTLY.

Hoffman received a Tony nomination for his performance in The Merchant of Venice-- something Pacino failed to do when he was on Broadway in the role.

If we're being honest, a lot of theater critics really don't like Pacino's scream-and-spit take on Shakespeare either-- they accuse him of just screaming the words and grunting and doing Pacino shtick instead of attempting to truly embody a character.

I really like Looking For Richard, but I don't think Pacino is necessarily a great Richard in the documentary. He fared somewhat better in The Merchant of Venice, because he toned back the screaming, but he still really cranks it up in an unsophisticated way at the end.

Overall, I can hear a case for Pacino or De Niro (and, if we're talking diverse skill set, for Hoffman)-- I just objected to the "obviousness" that you alluded to in your original post.

And it's breakfast time, and I'm bored.