LOL
Caine's exact words were "An actor with a very high standard of living often has to make a very low standard of movie". He also said "Art's lovey but you can't eat it and it don't pay the rent" and ""Last year I bought a Renoir, a Matisse, and a Picasso. That's art"
I attended a workshop by him at RADA many years ago and the school's artistic director, speaking to the hall before he arrived advised "Listen to every word he has to say, but not how he says it." Richard Harris hated him. I once sat at a table with Richard Harris and Ronnie Fraser and the subject of Caine came up. Harris, already pissed as a fart, turned beetroot red and spat "He can't fucking act and he's a complete cunt"
On the subject of Pacino v De Niro, I think they are two entirely different animals so it's tough to compare. For my money De Niro got trapped In "gangster" rut and he just kept doing the one trick everyone likes, even in Sleepers where he played a priest. However. See him in Mad Dog and Glory where he and Bill Murray switched to play against type, and Stanley and Iris opposite Jane Fonda, and you start to understand how underutilised he's been. Raging Bull, of course. His final transformation was as good as it gets.
One of my favourites of his is Stardust. He and Michelle Pfeiffer (another criminally underrated and underused actress IMO) threw caution and pretention to the wind and just had fun. They took that film by the nads and made it special. Everyone else in that production was handed a proper lesson.
Pacino has taken many more risks. Cruising, for instance, is a very difficult film to watch at times. I'd also agree that he's more accomplished opposite women. The hapless romantic in Frankie and Johnny for one, and the lovelorn cop in Sea of Love for another. I'd rate his sex scene with Ellen Barkin in that movie as one of the most erotic ever filmed without ever being graphic. Anyone who wants to understand movie chemistry should watch that film.
I'm not certain whether De Niro didn't take roles like these or if he was just never offered them but I can't see De Niro playing Shakespeare, wheareas Pacino was menacing as Shylock in Merchant of Venice.
Pacino is like Jack Nicholson, at his absolute best as larger than life characters in films where he can cut loose. Arguably the best film featuring both of them was Heat, and one of the most memorable scenes where Pacino shouts of Ashley Judd's character "Cos she's got a great ass! And you got your head stuck all the way up inside it!" That was entirely improvised and off script. All the reactions you see are genuine.
De Niro is far too controlled an animal to do that.
It's like trying to compare Olivier with Burton. You just can't do it and I wouldn't even try. They are bot good at what they do and aren't really interchangeable. Again, Heat is the perfect example. In your head swap the actors. Doesn't work anymore.
On the subject of Katy Perry (and Jessica Alba), my only passing interest is in an Alba-esque wardobe malfunction for Perry, which is in the bounds of possibility given her proportion and the kinds of costumes she wears. She got her arse out when her bikini fell off and her tits are way bigger than her arse. So you know. Hope springs eternal.
Alba's done nothing I care about since Dark Angel, and Katy Perry is music bubblegum. They are both one or two tiers up from Hilton and the Kardashians in my head.
JLH can actually act. She's suffered a similar fate to Pfeiffer in that her looks (and body) bracketted her. Then of course she went the TV route to guarantee herself work and money which brings us back to the Caine maxim. I haven't seen her in Criminal Minds yet, but that's a tougher proposition than her normal fare and won't be so reliant on her cleavage. It's also a decent ensemble cast and I can't imagine Gibson and Mantegna putting up with poor performances.
It's different for women though. there are so few really good roles written for them , which is why, when an Erin Brokovitch comes along, magic happens.
BOC