Best Supporting Actor 1998: Robert Duvall - A Civil Action

Robert Duvall starts to be a strange surprise for me. I never liked him very much. I respected him as a fine and worshipped actor, but his acting has never blown me away. The only performance of his that I really liked was in Get Low. All of the other performances were just too subtle to be outstanding. But if you visit this blog regularly, you already know that I also liked his performance in The Godfather, which I fully appreciated after more viewings of that film. So what's happened?
I just can't see why is this happening to me, but lately I found his subtle acting somehow fascinating. Maybe I'm getting older, or something, but I liked him a lot in A Civil Action, although his performance in it is as subtle, as usually.
The same thing happened to me with the film itself. I used to find it very dull, but as I was watching it because of this review I thought it was very fine. Duvall plays a lawyer that is an opponent to the leading character played by John Travolta. His an old lawyer that has the most of his career behind himself. Therefore his character is very calm and doesn't make a big deal out of anything.
This is a case similar to Ed Harris's character in The Truman show. It was a subtle portrayal of a very calm and almost stoic character that is just very fascinating to watch. He really got into the character and is very very realistic and natural. There are some scenes that were supposed to be funny in A Civil Action and most of them come from Duvall's character. And he succeeded in this, as well.
All right, on the other hand he wasn't somehow showy, or magnicifent and as I said I wasn't blown away by it. But it's very very decent performance that seems to have no technical flaws. Only you won't remember it very often after watching it, because there nothing special or extraordinary about it. It's just so much great performance...
The chances of winning an Oscar: I think he was the second, or the third. I mean, he's won SAG Awards for it, he must have had some support among the voters...

Worst Supporting Actor 2003

6. Al Pacino - Gigli   
As I said, Pacino really is not deserving of a nomination here. His one scene seems to be the only really good and even funny scene of the entire film. I think he is only deserving of a nomination because he agreed to play in this film and that is probably the reason he was nominated. But the performance is not deserving at all.

5. Anthony Anderson - Kangaroo Jack
There is really nothing wrong about this performance. It is a very solid comedic exhibition that is embarrassing and silly sometimes, but it logically comes with a crazy comedy. Of course he was overacting and things like that, but even when it's silly, you don't feel bad for him. Very fine and likable performance...

4. Christopher Walken - Gigli
One scene that is not bad, nor good. Though he portrayed very well how tired of his work the cop he played is, the side effect of this fact was the dullness of his performance. But still, I wouldn't nominate him here...

3. Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over
Though he was obviously enjoying playing this part (or these parts), he was very overacting and embarrassing. I must give him some credit for being a funny sometimes, but it wasn't in the moments he wanted to. The other thing is that he really can't handle playing various characters.

2. Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the hat
Overacting, silly and not funny performance. There is not even an effort from Baldwin to give some depth into this character. He is self-conscious and unreasonable in playing this role and he doesn't have any chemistry with his co-actors. And it's only his guilt.

1. Christopher Walken - Kangaroo Jack
Bad and very dull performance. As a mob boss he should induce some respect, but he doesn't. I can't understand the reasons of my feeling, but I just think that Walken struggled while playing this part. As if he took the role only because of the money.

Note: The Razzie Awards sometimes nominate one actor for more performances and then let him win for both (which is very stupid, because rarely both of them really deserve to win, or are equally bad). But to follow the rules I give my win to Walken for both of the performances. His performance in Kangaroo Jack is really the worst of the nominees and the other one is just in a terrible film. Maybe if he won, he would rebound and stop taking parts in such bad films. Therefore he'd be deserving for both of them...

My Nominees:
1. Christopher Walken - Kangaroo Jack
2. Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the hat
3. Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over
4. Michael Shannon - Kangaroo Jack
5. Robert Vito - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

The Spy Kids trilogy (though the third part, especially) used to be my guilty pleasure. It is so bad, that it is good. The badness was very enjoyable for me. But as I was watching it after a long time ago now, because of this review, I found it a bit boring at some moments, though it still was very entertaining.
Sylvester Stallone plays various characters in Spy Kids. The main of them is the narrator of the Game and the rest are just his alter-egos. All right, we all know that Stallone is not very much of a character actor, so you wouldn't even expect some depth from his performance. The narrator is just there as a villain that only needs to be bad and in this particular case even funny sometimes.
He suceeded in being bad, as well as funny. The sad thing about it is that his acting is bad and he is funny not the way he was supposed to be. He is very very overacting and it's not as entertaining, as he intended it to be.
On the other hand I must give him some credits for enjoying this role. Though his performance just isn't technically good, it's obvious that he really liked what he was doing. And as I always keep saying: If an actor enjoys playing his part, so does the audience enjoy watching it. So there's one thing I must admit. Scenes with Stallone never were the ones that bored me.
What about his best scene? It's hard to choose one, because he is equally bad in his entire performance. But the final scene with an uncle might be played the best. And his worst scene is the scene, in which all of his character get the space. Here we can see how little he did for these character and how equal they all are. I mean, changing the accent and being masked isn't very much...