Why is Jack Nicholson not held in the same esteem as Al Pacino and Robert De Niro?

Because he was always Jack.

Either you like whatever side of Jack he's showing you that day, or you don't.

Who says he isn't?

R2 There recently was a poll on here debating who was the better actor between Pacino and De Niro. It seems like those two are held up as the GOAT actors from the 70’s, not Nicholson.

Just a theory, but some of his later films were more female-centric than anything Pacino or De Niro did-- TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, AS GOOD AS IT GETS, etc. Many (not all) male critics are sexist, and don't take those films seriously.

Was that poll created here? If so, you have your answer.

Ask Roman Polanski.

"Who?" you ask?

Too hammy

R4 Good point. That may explain why De Niro and Pacino are more popular with bros. Even something like Chinatown or The Shining have prominent leading roles for women.

Because he's a one-note asshole known for his terrible treatment of women.

R9 He definitely was a pig towards women, absolutely. I’m only discussing acting ability tho.

Anyone who dismisses Nicholson as hammy, 1-note, always the same, etc. is lazily ignoring the far wider range of his work. To choose just 1 film from each of his 4 biggest decades -- his performances in CHINATOWN (1974), PRIZZI'S HONOR (1985), WOLF (1994) and THE PLEDGE (2001) all give lie to the clichés about his alleged hammy sameness.

I suspect that the biggest problem here is his public persona.

What's weird is how much he is already forgotten and he's still here.

R12 To be fair, he is retired.

[quote]What's weird is how much he is already forgotten and he's still here.

He no longer remembers himself.

I didn't say he was "always the same", R11.

I said he was always Jack.

There's a subtle difference that most viewers can't tell the difference between, unless watching carefully.

As Good As It Gets aged terribly. Jack’s win was so unnecessary.

And Helen Hunt’s

I would add About Schmidt to that list, R11. Great performance!

I didn't say he was "always the same", R11.

I said he was always Jack.

There's a subtle distinction between them that most don't pick up on in casual viewing.

^sorry about the repeat. Thought it had timed me out.

R15 nails it - he’s enormously talented but more like a John Wayne type movie star in that the character always becomes him - De Niro & Pacino can sometimes lose themselves in a role in ways Jack never could.

In most circles (critics, general public whatever) he is every bit as respected. In some respects maybe even more, because he did less later career crap (I said less) and knew when to quit. Plus he’s got that extra Oscar deserved or not.

The question is why Hoffman fell out of favor - it was always those four “greats” and it’s arguable he’s the most talented of them all. I guess because his third act was by far the most “low key” but it still shouldn’t really matter.

R21 Were Pacino and De Niro ever movie stars like Nicholson was tho?

R22 Hoffman’s filmography hasn’t aged as well as the other guys.

How did #MeToo come for Hoffman but not Nicholson?

R25 ugh who cares. Why wasn’t DeNiro outed as a druggie when we was with Belushi & Robin Williams the night of Belushi’s overdose? Some people are more untouchable for whatever reason. We could do this all night.

Jack Nicholson and his appeal faded because times change.

Hoffman films feel very dated (Tootsie anyone ? Ishtar, Kramer va Kramer ugh). And of the 4 he was definitely the "least cool".

Jack was COOL ! The Shining, Cukoo Nest & he was the epitome of a movie star with his on again off again relationship with Angelica.

Pacino played Scarface = arguably one of the most badass, badboy drug dealer roles of all time.

DeNiro = Taxi Driver ... so cool

70's photo

Hoffman & Nicholson 70's

OP what are you talking about? Jack is probably even more well liked and respected than both!

Also R4 is a reach, it's not as if Pacino and De Niro's later films are held in great critical esteem......

R11, Reds too. He's very restrained as O'Neill, in one of his best performances. It's always been hard to get people to watch that movie, though. Three hours and 20 minutes of squabbling among factions of the left wing of the 1910s, concluding with renal failure.

Jack is a rotten human being and the pigeons have come home to roost.

Lots of theories above (limited range, changing tastes, personal factors), but I think it's really a matter of De Niro and Pacino still being very active figures and Nicholson no longer being that. He doesn't exactly need publicists still to be pumping him up. He hasn't been in a movie since 2010. He hasn't been in a well-received one that added something significant to his gallery of characters since 2006. De Niro and Pacino are still out there in big movies such as The Irishman, Joker, House of Gucci, David O. Russell's next one, Scorsese's next one, etc.

Nicholson is in that weird in-between zone of still being alive but belonging to the past of movies. So if you read something appreciative about his acting these days, it's probably going to be in a retrospective piece about Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, The Shining, whatever.

I'm not a big Nicholson fan (or detractor) but I don't agree with the popular notion that always played the same character, Nicholson. I would, though, say that for the past 40 years he's coasted along playing that same Jack Nicholson character. Before that he had a certain common presence about him, but he gave more dimension and better performances and fit into a role more than made it fit to him.

Look at the posters/box covers for his whole run of films: from the 1980s onward, there's his face front and center, bigger than life, giving that same crazy as a shithouse rat smile. Though a formidable name, I expect he grew associated with "a Jack Nicholson vehicle" for which he was rewarded handsomely enough that it was difficult to mind. Going to see a Jack Nicholson film meant a certain kind of comedy or a certain kind of drama, all centered the two not very different faces of Jack, but four decades or so earlier, I don't think that was the case.

There's very little from the past four decades or so that I would pick as Oscar worthy, unless the category were Wackadoodle Older Dude, or Sentimental Favorite To Win. Pacino and especially DeNiro have done films to pay the (divorce) bills, and had performances that were not great, but they didn't give up and turn in the same performance each and every time on whatever script was handed them.

Sorry, but Pacino has been shouting all of his lines and giving the same psycho look for at least the last 20 years. The last thing he was able to surprise me in was the Merchant of Venice.

They all coast after awhile. They know that they are being hired to do their shtick.

It's because Nicholson is regarded as an essentially comic actor wheras Pacino and DeNiro are high drama actors out of that 'respectable' school of method acting.

Michael Corleone was ultimately more badass than Tony Montana.

^ Sorry for thread derailment. Carry on.

Nicholson has 3 Oscars. The other 2 have 3 combined. Though I think 🤔 they should all be tied at 3 or 4.

[quote]The Shining star Jack Nicholson was diagnosed with an incurable disease

He’s depraved on account o’he’s deprived

I think he does less 'actors showcase' roles. Pacino especially gets more respect because of his stage work and ego-trip vehicles (recently on HBO) that put him and his acting at the centre of the film - even though his performances are largely the same in all of them. De Niro is famed for his method acting, especially Raging Bull and Taxi Driver (training as a real NYC cabbie), even Cape Fear where he famously had something done to his teeth for the role. He's also more known to younger audiences through the recent comedies like Meet the Parents and Silver Linings Playbook.

For Nicholson most of the time his performance has been 'part of the film', whereas in the case of the other two, their performance often *IS* the film, which tends to garner them more respect. He's also perceived as more of a caricature than they are. Not sure why because they all have distinct mannerisms. I like him a lot in Cuckoo's Nest, Five Easy Pieces, About Schmidt, Reds, Chinatown, King of Marvin Gardens, The Last Detail, Carnal Knowledge, and Easy Rider. Most of these are directors movies rather than 'actors movies'.

Because he’s above them

Nicholson should have stopped after The Departed. It would have been a great role to go out on, and the two films he did after that were entirely forgettable.

If they are forgettable, they'll be forgotten.

Pacino with a good director to reduce the excess (think Godfather I & II, Dog Day Afternoon) beats Nicholson any day of the week. Nicholson in "Terms of Endearment" was already a reshash of his more forgettable performances and one reason I disliked the film.

De Niro can occasionally rise above phoning it in (the Irishman, for instance) and a stringer body of work than Pacino or Nicholson.

R7, if ANYONE'S a HAM it's Al "Whoaaaaah!" Pacino.

I disagree with you OP. He's considered one of the greats.

[quote] [R2] There recently was a poll on here

OP You take Datalounge far too seriously 😂

Jack is among the greats , up there with Al and Robert - I'd add Gene too. He was also the best looking of the lot tho Gene oozed sex appeal too.

I thought we only played the women against each other for our sick entertainment

I don't know them.

Why has Nicholson disappeared? Does he have dementia. Pacino and Anthony Hopkins are the same age he is and they're still working.

Possibly R53. Plus, it looks like he's turning into Jim Gaffigan.