Al Pacino is better than Leonardo DiCaprio

Before I jump to my conclusion, I want to give my thought on my opponent's rebuttal and correct the flaws I found in his argument. Here we go. You mentioned about critics and critical rankings. Actors and films aren't just judged by critics. They are also judged by regular moviegoers as well. Some critics may be biased, there is no doubt, however, they do argue over relevant things, such as how a role should be played, a certain camera shot be, etc. Newsweek said that Pacino's role in the Godfather Part II was "arguably cinema's greatest portrayal of the hardening of a heart. " This is not irrelevant. This is a good statement. You claimed that the purpose of a film is to bring in profit. The actual purpose of a move is to bring a story to life, not just to make money. Money, if anything, is a good bonus to a film. If you're an actor that wants money, you have to earn it, by being a great actor. The money you get isn't automatic; it must be earned. A commercially successful film isn't always successful. You can go see a commercially-big movie, but it may not actually be good. Some moviegoers may want their money back. Just because a movie has Leonardo DiCaprio in it, doesn't mean it's going to be great. You want your money's worth. Like DiCaprio, Pacino also brought people into the theaters. People enjoyed watching Pacino also. They wanted to see how good he truly was. Millions of theaters sold out on tickets for Pacino films. Pacino was one of the biggest actors, if not the biggest actor of the 1970's. You saying that the Godfather is the greatest film of Pacino's career is debatable. Saying that Marlon Brando owned that movie is also subjective. You got great acting all around, from Pacino, Brando, Caan, Duvall, and Shire. DiCaprio's career had its ups and downs. Pacino's career never died out. He took part in films in the 1980's; he may have had a hard time, but he still took part in films. Also, you can be a horrible actor from a young age, and still be a horrible actor even into adulthood. To respond, there were a few funny moments in the Revenant. When you choose serious roles, you are willing to give it your all. Pacino, personally, took more of that chance. It's the roles they choose that make the actor great, along with the acting. You need both. When I mentioned Nicholson, Hoffman, and De Niro, I wasn't talking about the Oscars, I was talking about regular competition. I did say earlier that DiCaprio is more diverse. I was correcting you when you said that Pacino only plays crime lords. Pacino can branch out too; not as much as DiCaprio, but can still branch out. Pacino had to work extremely hard to perfect a Spanish accent for two different roles, something that is extremely hard to do. Something DiCaprio has never done and can never do as good. Pacino did it perfectly. Pacino had plenty to offer than being a crime lord. He put as much effort into non-crime related roles as crime-related roles. Now, I can jump into my conclusion: Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favorites. He is great. When compared to Al Pacino, that is something else. Pacino was better. You don't know what to expect. He can be insanely quiet or loud and angry. His career has given moviegoers and critics and fellow actors thought on how much effort he can put into the roles he chooses. As method actor, he does it precisely. His skills scared fellow actors, trying to keep up and beat him. The characters that Pacino played impacted Hollywood, partially because of him. Pacino chose roles that had depth. The movies that he was in became great because of him and vice versa. He changed how a character should be played. He redefined it, so to speak. DiCaprio also can, but not as well. DiCaprio never played characters or had movies that had more impact on the film industry than Pacino. Pacino is one of the greatest method actors who has ever lived. DiCaprio is too, but he is just not better. If anything, DiCaprio is a disciple of Pacino, but he is not above him.