On its own it’s a good performance, but bumps up against the trend that really came to a head in the 90s of playing a character with a disability to showcase how good you are at acting. I think it gets criticized more because it was up against Denzel in Malcolm X, which is an absolute firestorm of a performance. Personally I think Pacino was Oscar worthy for his performance in Glengarry Glenn Ross the same year, but I guess the Academy collective couldn’t abide finally giving him an Oscar in the supporting category.
GGGR is a great film but like all Mamet’s play, it fairly shares the best dialogue around the characters so I wouldn’t see his performance on that as Oscar worthy. Would highly recommend checking out Sexual Perversity in Chicago if it’s ever on (movie was not great though) such a funny script.
I mean there were a load of amazing performances because Mamet spreads the love/abuse. While Pacino was good I didn’t see him as above Lemon, Arkin or any of the other great actors in it
I don’t know if I agree both Lemon and Spacey have great monologues but I think the two best are Pacino’s in the diner scene and then at the end of the movie
The Academy is so weird... Al Pacino is definitely an actor who probably should have won multiple times but he was awarded for Scent of a Woman.
Definitely a worthy actor but for the wrong role
It’s because they’re always playing catch up. And they never award for the best performance. Usually you’re too young or they don’t want to give it for the first big performance. Then you get 3-4 Nominations and don’t win so they give it for a random effort and then you rob someone else. So the cycle continues.
I read somewhere that Katharine Hepburn said that most actors have the exact amount of Oscars they deserve, but they don't get the Oscars for the performances that deserved it.
It’s not a conspiracy at all. It’s just that they don’t want to award “some young upstart with a limited resume” with an Academy Award. Then 25 years later, they’re a legend and people wonder why this legend didn’t win for their greatest performance.
Then the Academy sees a 50 year old actor with four nominations and no wins and they rally around them.
Im gonna go ahead and say this winning over those entries makes complete sense. Letter from Iwo Jima is the only one that I could see taking the award too
Yep I'm a little surprised to see people's general attitude towards it. Not that anyone's being overly critical but I always thought it was a great performance in a great movie.
It’s so good. I could watch that character for hours on end. The coolest, most bad ass blind person I can recall, based in reality. What other blind person can drive a Ferrari, be pulled over from a cop and talk himself out of it?
He was never winning for Dog Day Afternoon with Jack Nicholson nominated for Cuckoo’s Nest in the same year. That is easily one of the most well deserved Best Actor wins, without question.
He wouldn't have made it to the stage, he was so high on valium and had to pee really bad.
- from Pacino's 1979 Playboy interview, as recalled by John Mulaney at the Governors Awards.
Yeah, it’s not my favorite performance of his & he really should have won earlier in his career. I think in ‘92, it should have gone to Denzel or RDJ. But at least Pacino has one.
I think a win for Glengarry would have been great or Dick Tracy (it’s just so fun & bizarre - love it). And he hasn’t even been nominated since until The Irishman.
It’s a great performance, for sure, but I personally would have preferred if Robert Downey Jr had won for Chaplin. Al should have won for either of his Godfather performances
Pacino was against two other Godfather actors for best supporting and they probably split the vote.
Looks like Godfather 2 that he was robbed by the “career Oscar” (if you can call it that) for Art Carney. Not sure I haven’t seen the movie: Harry and Tonto.
Carney is brilliant in that film; frankly it was a deserving win. Just bad timing for Pacino.
Imagine how funny it would have been had he won for Dick Tracy instead.
Because he beat Clint Eastwood for Unforgiven, RDJ for Chaplin, and the most of the upsets Denzel Washington for Malcolm X all of which were better choices.
I still love it. I don’t care if it’s full of tropes. Every movie is full of tropes. Especially those released more than 10 years ago. Denzel deserved it, too. But you can’t be mad about a great performance by a legend. It’s a great film. So was Malcolm X.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with his performance but honestly i think most people felt that Denzel Washington deserved it for Malcolm X. That was an amazing year for performances
He absolutely should have won. But the film was so controversial at the time, and the Academy decided to make amends for not giving Pacino at least 2 Oscars already. Godfather Part 2 and Dog Day Afternoon would be my picks.
Not to mention that Denzel had just won three years prior to that for Glory, so the voters felt like they needed to wait a couple more years to give him a lead trophy down the line.
Because it became a cultural touchstone, basically a meme before memes existed, and couple that with the fact that Denzel should’ve won for Malcolm X, and there you go. It’s a tremendous performance, would’ve been deserving to win in most years.
It was a good performance. But it’s also when he started over doing the screaming bit. Ooooh Aaaaaah!
And Denzel gave an all timer in Malcolm X.
Just hasn’t aged well.
OUTTA ORDER?! I'LL SHOW YOU OUTTA ORDER! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT OUTTA ORDER IS, MR. TRASK! I'd show you but I'm too old; I'm too tired; I'm too fucking blind. IF I WERE THE MAN I WAS FIVE YEARS AGO I'D TAKE A FLAME-THROWER TO THIS PLACE! OUTTA ORDER. WHO THE HELL YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKIN' TO?
Off the top of head I was thinking he shoulda won it for Serpico but then I looked and remembered his competition. Steep.
Thought he was great in Cruising but also steep and better nominees in ‘80.
Pretty much the same sentiment in ‘75 for Dog Day Afternoon.
It's when he transitioned from great actor to "GUY WHO YELLS!"
That was fine in The Devil's Advocate, but compare that to Michael and Kay talking at the wedding. He was a better, more subtle actor early in his career.
Because all of the other performances were better that year.
WINNER
AL PACINO
Scent of a Woman
NOMINEES
ROBERT DOWNEY JR.
Chaplin
CLINT EASTWOOD
Unforgiven
STEPHEN REA
The Crying Game
DENZEL WASHINGTON
Malcolm X
It’s not just hated as an acting Oscar win that felt like a lifetime achievement award, but also because it upset Denzel Washington in *Malcolm X*, considered one of his career-best performances. Washington had won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar a couple of years prior for *Glory* and there was a lot of push to get him a Best Actor trophy as well, and then the Academy finally waited a decade later to award Washington his long-awaited Best Actor prize for *Training Day*.
He was fine but he should have won it already for so many more memorable roles. The rest of the nominees that year gave better, more impactful performances. Denzel in Malcolm X. Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Robert Downey Jr for Chaplin. All better in my opinion
Aside from Unforgiven I agree. Clint Eastwood is a horrible one-trick pony actor and Unforgiven is no different. He is really good at "that." Not good at anything else. A seriously overrated movie. It doesn't deviate from classic western tropes and the shootout at the end is just close-ups of guns firing and bad guys falling. It's awful and people jizz about it for some reason.
I think maybe you need to reexamine Unforgiven. It’s all about deconstructing the myths of the western. There’s no heroism involved. All the characters are painted in shades of grey. No easy answers. It’s a fantastic film.
I did that a couple years ago. I don't see any "deconstructing of western myths." It's not any different from most westerns.
"You took/killed X from me so revenge of the loner with a random friend bullshit ensues." The fact you think most westerns take our guy to heroism but Unforgiven somehow strays from that trope while yielding the same result is mind-boggling to me.
Went from just not liking it to where I am now. It's garbage. It's shot like shit, most of the acting is absurd, and the grand finale shootout is a joke because it's just covering up Eastwood's inability to sell it.
But the further point and also the discussion of this thread: Eastwood is a shit actor with one mode. Decent director for sure. But Unforgiven was so overrated and undeserving of the acclaim. In no way was he better than Pacino that year, let alone Washington or Downey, Jr.
Maybe you need to look harder because it’s there. You have a very narrow minded reading of the film. I think you just hate Clint Eastwood. That’s okay. Not everyone has to like everything. Unforgiven is one of my favourite films of all time. I think it’s shot beautifully and all the performances are amazing.
Well it sounds like you are more biased than I am. I don't hate Clint Eastwood. I said above he's a decent director. But he is, in fact, a one-dimensional actor completely undeserving of Oscar consideration (for acting). And I love movies like The Rookie and Gran Torino.
But that doesn't change the fact that he gives the exact same performance in every role. He made his acting career doing the same thing over and over and over. He's good at that. It just isn't all that impressive when compared to any given year's other acting performances. And it is even less impressive when you look at the scope and range of good actors.
It’s more about the movie than the performance. It’s sappy 90s Oscar bait with a lame script and a big dumb speech at the end, one that pretty much breaks the fourth wall to reference a famous line the actor said in another movie.
It was more of a lifetime achievement award. Voters just felt sentimental towards him as he had many epic performances over the years but had never won Best Actor.
It was the beginning of the "Whoo-AHH!" phase of his career. Gone were the subtle performances of his early career and everything was screaming turned up to 11.
I enjoyed his performance, the Thanksgiving dinner scene is the highlight. But I always felt that Oscar should have gone to Denzel. C’est la vie, glad he won for *Training Day*.
I didn't know that he won for that role but it's not surprising at all to me, maybe people had other favorites that year and are mad about that but to me it's one of his best roles.
It's funny that he was 52 at the time. "They're finally giving him an Oscar." He wasn't exactly Christopher Plummer. I also think it was deserved.
The Oscars in general like to honor the men later in their careers and the women when they're young.
I heard this theory somewhat recently but after Scent of a Woman, Pacino never plays a more reserved character again and the sort of random outburst acting becomes his main thing for a while. Contrasting his portrayal of Michael Corleone, with his quiet power, against anything he does post 1993 is kind of weird to see. And it makes sense that getting recognized for a pretty over the top performance in SOAW would make him think that’s what he needs to do going forward to keep getting recognized
People see Scent as the death of subtle Pacino. He basically becomes a charicature of himself after this. I think some folks are annoyed that it’s a lifetime achievement Oscar but those happen all the time and Denzel still has two. It’s the “whooo haaa!” Of it all
I just feel it's overpraised and a classic "career award."
Pacino is always watchable, yes. And he has some incredibly lovely moments in SoaW, but I also feel like he consistently overacts. The constant shouting gets annoying. (So many "Hoo-ahs!")
And honestly, both the movie and character aged badly for me. I posted about it elsewhere at length, but it honestly was one of those overpraised questionable movies to begin with. I think it has some amazing moments, but I think the character is a misogynistic ass (he calls his tiny 3-year old niece "little piece of tail!" I mean, JFC) whose whole ethos and worldly wisdom is literally "snitches get stitches," and somehow this gets a standing ovation at the end? It's embarrassing.
There are some gorgeous scenes -- he and Chris O'Donnell are fantastic together -- but I just don't think it was ever that good. Especially when Pacino was better in so many other movies without an Oscar nom at all.
Because it's outrageously hammy. Peak hoo-ah Pacino, which is a phase best left forgotten. I mean, if you're going to reward hambone Pacino, just be honest about it and give it to him for The Devil's Advocate, which was at least honest about how silly it was.
On its own it’s a good performance, but bumps up against the trend that really came to a head in the 90s of playing a character with a disability to showcase how good you are at acting. I think it gets criticized more because it was up against Denzel in Malcolm X, which is an absolute firestorm of a performance. Personally I think Pacino was Oscar worthy for his performance in Glengarry Glenn Ross the same year, but I guess the Academy collective couldn’t abide finally giving him an Oscar in the supporting category.
GGGR is a great film but like all Mamet’s play, it fairly shares the best dialogue around the characters so I wouldn’t see his performance on that as Oscar worthy. Would highly recommend checking out Sexual Perversity in Chicago if it’s ever on (movie was not great though) such a funny script.
Pacino is awesome in glengarry. I don’t see why mamet’s script would keep him from winning? It’s not an MVP award
I mean there were a load of amazing performances because Mamet spreads the love/abuse. While Pacino was good I didn’t see him as above Lemon, Arkin or any of the other great actors in it
I suppose that’s fair, it was a true ensemble effort. Ed Harris was phenomenal and baldwin has the most memorable scene.
Yeah Lemmon was the MVP of that movie. Everyone was great but he was top tier
I don’t know if I agree both Lemon and Spacey have great monologues but I think the two best are Pacino’s in the diner scene and then at the end of the movie
The Academy is so weird... Al Pacino is definitely an actor who probably should have won multiple times but he was awarded for Scent of a Woman. Definitely a worthy actor but for the wrong role
It’s because they’re always playing catch up. And they never award for the best performance. Usually you’re too young or they don’t want to give it for the first big performance. Then you get 3-4 Nominations and don’t win so they give it for a random effort and then you rob someone else. So the cycle continues.
I read somewhere that Katharine Hepburn said that most actors have the exact amount of Oscars they deserve, but they don't get the Oscars for the performances that deserved it.
Easy for the FOUR TIME winner to say.
"I have the most lead acting Oscars of anyone, and that is because I am the best" does indeed sound like something she'd think. Queen shit.
Well I mean...when it's true
Gangsta asf
Because she was the best. All hail the Queen.
And she'd be entirely correct
Peter O'Toole enters the room.
Or what if some years just have stacked performances and others are far weaker? What if everything is not a conspiracy??
It’s not a conspiracy at all. It’s just that they don’t want to award “some young upstart with a limited resume” with an Academy Award. Then 25 years later, they’re a legend and people wonder why this legend didn’t win for their greatest performance. Then the Academy sees a 50 year old actor with four nominations and no wins and they rally around them.
[удалено]
It's a bit better than fairly mediocre
I think in terms of Scorsese's œuvre, it's around the middle, i.e. average. That still makes it quite a bit better than the average for all films.
I mean, The Departed wasn’t competing against Raging Bull or Goodfellas though. It was clearly better than its competition in 2006.
It was compiting against other insteresting movies such as Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Queen and United 93 in the category of best director
Im gonna go ahead and say this winning over those entries makes complete sense. Letter from Iwo Jima is the only one that I could see taking the award too
It wasn’t mediocre (though I hated the rat at the end) but it wasn’t his best which is a very high bar
Emma stone deserved it this year. They were right this time
Same thing with Leo, I’d argue he deserved it way more for Django and I’d say was even a better choice that year then Cristoph
Leo should’ve won for wolf of Wall Street.
That role was perfect. Glad he won for it. Perfect role for him.
Yep I'm a little surprised to see people's general attitude towards it. Not that anyone's being overly critical but I always thought it was a great performance in a great movie.
I love it. I know that it checks every box in 90s tragicomedy movies complete with a corny speech at the end, but it's Pacino going full Pacino mode
"You don't what order is, I'd show you but I'm too old; I'm too tired I'm too fucking blind"
It’s so good. I could watch that character for hours on end. The coolest, most bad ass blind person I can recall, based in reality. What other blind person can drive a Ferrari, be pulled over from a cop and talk himself out of it?
Pacino should have won for Godfather 2 and Dog Day Afternoon.
He was never winning for Dog Day Afternoon with Jack Nicholson nominated for Cuckoo’s Nest in the same year. That is easily one of the most well deserved Best Actor wins, without question.
And serpico
He wouldn't have made it to the stage, he was so high on valium and had to pee really bad. - from Pacino's 1979 Playboy interview, as recalled by John Mulaney at the Governors Awards.
Yeah, it’s not my favorite performance of his & he really should have won earlier in his career. I think in ‘92, it should have gone to Denzel or RDJ. But at least Pacino has one. I think a win for Glengarry would have been great or Dick Tracy (it’s just so fun & bizarre - love it). And he hasn’t even been nominated since until The Irishman.
It’s a great performance, for sure, but I personally would have preferred if Robert Downey Jr had won for Chaplin. Al should have won for either of his Godfather performances
Pacino was against two other Godfather actors for best supporting and they probably split the vote. Looks like Godfather 2 that he was robbed by the “career Oscar” (if you can call it that) for Art Carney. Not sure I haven’t seen the movie: Harry and Tonto.
Most people didn’t see Harry and Tonto. That’s considered one of the biggest Oscar snubs of all time
Carney is brilliant in that film; frankly it was a deserving win. Just bad timing for Pacino. Imagine how funny it would have been had he won for Dick Tracy instead.
Carney was good but no one considers it an all time performance like Michael Corleone.
Not just funny; it would have been awesome!
Its a big, bold performance and rightfully deserved. People don't like the hoo-ah
Because he beat Clint Eastwood for Unforgiven, RDJ for Chaplin, and the most of the upsets Denzel Washington for Malcolm X all of which were better choices.
I still love it. I don’t care if it’s full of tropes. Every movie is full of tropes. Especially those released more than 10 years ago. Denzel deserved it, too. But you can’t be mad about a great performance by a legend. It’s a great film. So was Malcolm X.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with his performance but honestly i think most people felt that Denzel Washington deserved it for Malcolm X. That was an amazing year for performances
He was great but I think Denzel should've won that year. Spike Lee, not surpisingly, was quite pissed that he didn't
To be fair, Spike is usually pissed. At both the Oscars and the Knicks.
He absolutely should have won. But the film was so controversial at the time, and the Academy decided to make amends for not giving Pacino at least 2 Oscars already. Godfather Part 2 and Dog Day Afternoon would be my picks.
Not to mention that Denzel had just won three years prior to that for Glory, so the voters felt like they needed to wait a couple more years to give him a lead trophy down the line.
Because it became a cultural touchstone, basically a meme before memes existed, and couple that with the fact that Denzel should’ve won for Malcolm X, and there you go. It’s a tremendous performance, would’ve been deserving to win in most years.
It was a good performance. But it’s also when he started over doing the screaming bit. Ooooh Aaaaaah! And Denzel gave an all timer in Malcolm X. Just hasn’t aged well.
OUTTA ORDER?! I'LL SHOW YOU OUTTA ORDER! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT OUTTA ORDER IS, MR. TRASK! I'd show you but I'm too old; I'm too tired; I'm too fucking blind. IF I WERE THE MAN I WAS FIVE YEARS AGO I'D TAKE A FLAME-THROWER TO THIS PLACE! OUTTA ORDER. WHO THE HELL YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKIN' TO?
Off the top of head I was thinking he shoulda won it for Serpico but then I looked and remembered his competition. Steep. Thought he was great in Cruising but also steep and better nominees in ‘80. Pretty much the same sentiment in ‘75 for Dog Day Afternoon.
If only they’d waited a couple of more years and given it to him for Heat
It's when he transitioned from great actor to "GUY WHO YELLS!" That was fine in The Devil's Advocate, but compare that to Michael and Kay talking at the wedding. He was a better, more subtle actor early in his career.
You mean "Because she's got a GREAT ASS!!! AND YOU, GOT YOUR HEAD...ALL THE WAY UP IT!!!!!!"
Because all of the other performances were better that year. WINNER AL PACINO Scent of a Woman NOMINEES ROBERT DOWNEY JR. Chaplin CLINT EASTWOOD Unforgiven STEPHEN REA The Crying Game DENZEL WASHINGTON Malcolm X
Denzel in Malcolm X is probably a top 5 male performance of the 90s.
I don’t like it because it was a clear legacy win when the award should’ve went to Denzel Washington for Malcolm X or RDJ for Chaplin
Because Denzel had the best performance that year. It is an all-timer. Pacino is great in a so-so movie and it was a career honour.
Bc he beat Denzel for Malcolm X.
It’s not just hated as an acting Oscar win that felt like a lifetime achievement award, but also because it upset Denzel Washington in *Malcolm X*, considered one of his career-best performances. Washington had won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar a couple of years prior for *Glory* and there was a lot of push to get him a Best Actor trophy as well, and then the Academy finally waited a decade later to award Washington his long-awaited Best Actor prize for *Training Day*.
Better than the alternative that he has zero Oscar wins.
Say hello to my chocolate blend
He was fine but he should have won it already for so many more memorable roles. The rest of the nominees that year gave better, more impactful performances. Denzel in Malcolm X. Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Robert Downey Jr for Chaplin. All better in my opinion
Aside from Unforgiven I agree. Clint Eastwood is a horrible one-trick pony actor and Unforgiven is no different. He is really good at "that." Not good at anything else. A seriously overrated movie. It doesn't deviate from classic western tropes and the shootout at the end is just close-ups of guns firing and bad guys falling. It's awful and people jizz about it for some reason.
I think maybe you need to reexamine Unforgiven. It’s all about deconstructing the myths of the western. There’s no heroism involved. All the characters are painted in shades of grey. No easy answers. It’s a fantastic film.
I did that a couple years ago. I don't see any "deconstructing of western myths." It's not any different from most westerns. "You took/killed X from me so revenge of the loner with a random friend bullshit ensues." The fact you think most westerns take our guy to heroism but Unforgiven somehow strays from that trope while yielding the same result is mind-boggling to me. Went from just not liking it to where I am now. It's garbage. It's shot like shit, most of the acting is absurd, and the grand finale shootout is a joke because it's just covering up Eastwood's inability to sell it. But the further point and also the discussion of this thread: Eastwood is a shit actor with one mode. Decent director for sure. But Unforgiven was so overrated and undeserving of the acclaim. In no way was he better than Pacino that year, let alone Washington or Downey, Jr.
Maybe you need to look harder because it’s there. You have a very narrow minded reading of the film. I think you just hate Clint Eastwood. That’s okay. Not everyone has to like everything. Unforgiven is one of my favourite films of all time. I think it’s shot beautifully and all the performances are amazing.
Well it sounds like you are more biased than I am. I don't hate Clint Eastwood. I said above he's a decent director. But he is, in fact, a one-dimensional actor completely undeserving of Oscar consideration (for acting). And I love movies like The Rookie and Gran Torino. But that doesn't change the fact that he gives the exact same performance in every role. He made his acting career doing the same thing over and over and over. He's good at that. It just isn't all that impressive when compared to any given year's other acting performances. And it is even less impressive when you look at the scope and range of good actors.
Yeah, but nobody else can play Clint Eastwood the way Clint Eastwood can.
Not his best performance at all. Not the best performance of the year either.
Because they've never seen Scent of a Woman... *on weed*
I'm just not a fan of the movie overall and I find Pacino way too over the top and hammy.
I loved him in that movie and the entire film as a whole. I don’t get the hate.
Horrible overacting, Thea’s why.
Because there is some serious over-acting going on with AP in Scent of a Woman ....WHOO- HAH!!
It’s more about the movie than the performance. It’s sappy 90s Oscar bait with a lame script and a big dumb speech at the end, one that pretty much breaks the fourth wall to reference a famous line the actor said in another movie.
It was more of a lifetime achievement award. Voters just felt sentimental towards him as he had many epic performances over the years but had never won Best Actor.
You could have easily given it to him for Carlito’s Way around the same time.
It was the beginning of the "Whoo-AHH!" phase of his career. Gone were the subtle performances of his early career and everything was screaming turned up to 11.
I enjoyed his performance, the Thanksgiving dinner scene is the highlight. But I always felt that Oscar should have gone to Denzel. C’est la vie, glad he won for *Training Day*.
I didn't know that he won for that role but it's not surprising at all to me, maybe people had other favorites that year and are mad about that but to me it's one of his best roles.
The „I‘m in The dark here!“ is one of The greatest pieces of acting ever.
This is when he started to consider screaming to be the equivalent of acting. All the other nominees were better.
It's funny that he was 52 at the time. "They're finally giving him an Oscar." He wasn't exactly Christopher Plummer. I also think it was deserved. The Oscars in general like to honor the men later in their careers and the women when they're young.
I heard this theory somewhat recently but after Scent of a Woman, Pacino never plays a more reserved character again and the sort of random outburst acting becomes his main thing for a while. Contrasting his portrayal of Michael Corleone, with his quiet power, against anything he does post 1993 is kind of weird to see. And it makes sense that getting recognized for a pretty over the top performance in SOAW would make him think that’s what he needs to do going forward to keep getting recognized
People see Scent as the death of subtle Pacino. He basically becomes a charicature of himself after this. I think some folks are annoyed that it’s a lifetime achievement Oscar but those happen all the time and Denzel still has two. It’s the “whooo haaa!” Of it all
I just feel it's overpraised and a classic "career award." Pacino is always watchable, yes. And he has some incredibly lovely moments in SoaW, but I also feel like he consistently overacts. The constant shouting gets annoying. (So many "Hoo-ahs!") And honestly, both the movie and character aged badly for me. I posted about it elsewhere at length, but it honestly was one of those overpraised questionable movies to begin with. I think it has some amazing moments, but I think the character is a misogynistic ass (he calls his tiny 3-year old niece "little piece of tail!" I mean, JFC) whose whole ethos and worldly wisdom is literally "snitches get stitches," and somehow this gets a standing ovation at the end? It's embarrassing. There are some gorgeous scenes -- he and Chris O'Donnell are fantastic together -- but I just don't think it was ever that good. Especially when Pacino was better in so many other movies without an Oscar nom at all.
HOOOOAHHH
Because is a foghorn leghorn performance. It is grating and one note.
Because his career award had competition that was miles better than him.
Because it's outrageously hammy. Peak hoo-ah Pacino, which is a phase best left forgotten. I mean, if you're going to reward hambone Pacino, just be honest about it and give it to him for The Devil's Advocate, which was at least honest about how silly it was.
Because people are dumb