I continually have this argument with my friends:

Who is better De Niro or Pacino?
BUT, that is admittedly too difficult to answer,
Sooo... who deserved the Oscar more in Pt. II, De Niro, or Pacino? I once read a review of GFII (The guy hated it so he can't be trusted, but he made some good points) that said that De Niro
"establishes the physical antecedents of the Brando character" but "lacks" the violent layers underneath.
I mean, when De Niro's character kills Don Cicci, he seems to be repelled by it, but at the same time enjoying it, with a sneer on his lips. That to me, seems to be more De Niro killing the guy, than the character, Don Corleone.

Pacino's character, on the other hand, when he does slap Kay, you know that he is Vito's son.

FFC talks about how if they couldn't get Brando as a young man, they could get De Niro to look like Vito. But, if the character of Vito is similar to Brando's own personality somewhat, then the way that Brando acted in Streetcar is more what i would expect of a young Vito.

I mean, young Vito is not a brute and insensative like Brando's Stanley Kowalski, but still...

Compare how Brando's Vito acts when he slaps Johnny and says, "You can act LIKE A MAN!!!" and when Vito kills Fanucci, and Cicci.

I dunno, i'm just ranting and raving, don't get me wrong, De Niro was AMAZING!!
But i think that Pacino was wrongly robbed by the idiots in the Academy (they made at least several good decisions by giving Oscars to Brando, Rota, FFC, and I and II though).

They almost acknowledged as much by giving Pacino an Oscar for "scent of a woman." Pacino was OK, but certainly not Oscar-worthy. It was like they were saying, "we know we snubbed you in the past, so here you go."

And the guy who got the Oscar for 1974 was for some film that hardly anyone knows, it was some no name random guy (correct me if I'm wrong).

Pacino's perf., esp. comes to lite in the bonus scenes, where he is lying in bed, incapcitated, etc.

:-)