Sunday, 10 November 2013

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


  1. Christopher Walken is a great actor, but a selective actor he is not.

    1. Absolutely true! But 2003 just wasn't very good year for him, either.