>but his numbers are off
>
>way way off

I was unaware that Pacino was so many people's personal Jesus.

Very briefly, here's my basic estimation of his career: Beyond incredible as Michael Corleone, then for most of the rest of his films he hardly took a second to hold back and play understated, instead opting for a Scarface over-the-top caricature of man. Now perhaps that scenery-chewing angle is what makes him favorable in someone's opinion, but for me it hardly seems necessary to the degree which he does, and I'd prefer controlled more so. I used to think he had just the Godfather films, then a long list of melodrama. While I'm no longer quite as hard on the guy, the often-cited Dog Day Afternoon, for example, doesn't impress me. As for his other notable performances: I liked Serpico enough, I hated Scarface, I haven't seen Scent of a Woman, I don't remember him really too much either way in Heat, Carlito's Way is good but he doesn't leave the screen unblemished. I recently watched The Devil's Advocate, and actually think he underplayed the part at time, but those moments where he's just riffing in long soliloquies actually make sense given his character there. (And as always happens in some discussion about Pacino, De Niro's name comes up, so for the record, De Niro's version of Lucifer is, for me, the more effective prince of darkness.)

Now maybe it's cheating that I can cite Pacino's early start on stage, but it kinda makes sense to me. I don't mean to slander any actor of plays, I support local Sacramento theatre decently, so I'm not trying to make too many generalizations. However, what I've seen from most stage work is that the actors tend to project themselves bigger in voice and mannerism more than a film actor, for instance. This would make sense given the dimensions of the theatre, where there are no mics, and the need to get across the emotional state of the character to the back rows. But it works in the play setting. However, because everything is so close and understood with a sense of immediacy on the movie screen, such grandiose dramatics are often not needed and can be distracting. So my thesis or whatever is that given his theatre background, when not properly guided by a director, he reverts to his acting instincts and makes everything big. (I'd hesitate to call him arrogant or vain and blame that part of him too, but you'd have to ask Beverly D'Angelo.) Now maybe you think Scarface was good and he played it perfectly. Me, I tend to think it was rather embarrassing and exhibited no connection with the same guy who had once been so incredible.

I don't think Pacino belongs to the 5% school (and I'll probably get to the percentages in particular later). I've addressed that 5% as the kind whose talent more often than not doesn't need the guidance or instruction from a director, the good fortune from a perfectly cast role, or a beneficial edit. Is he bad? Absolutely not, but what I can tell from his timeless, early work with Coppola is that there he was able to create an intense and powerful character without portraying this obnoxious caricature. After that . . .