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: Christopher Walken - Kangaroo Jack & Gigli

Christopher Walken is an Academy Award winner, but in 2003 he was taking part in films that are not quite good. It would matter, if his performances in them were as good, as you would expect from an Oscar holder. Were they? The answer is "no".
Both of Walken's performances are surprisingly dull. In Kangaroo Jack he plays a mob boss. (Funny thing is that Al Pacino also plays a mob boss in Gigli, for which he was also Razzie-nominated the same year.) That is a character that should induce some respect. Walken completely failed in that. In fact, it was the only purpose he was supposed to reach, because in this particular case his role didn't want him to do anything else. Really there is nothing else to play. Just induce some respect. It's sad when you're only purpose in the film is so much easy and you can't succeed in reaching that. And it's a shame when you're an Academy Award winner. So as for me, his nomination for Kangaroo Jack was deserving.
Let's take a look at his second nominated performance, which we can see in Gigli. It's a very similar case to Pacino - if we're talking about the screentime. Walken only has got a scene in Gigli. He plays a very weary cop that hardly cares about the resolution of his case. This performance of Walken is a bit better, because he at least showed how sick and tired of his work he is, He showed it well, but he became very dull. Some people were enjoying his performance (and maybe it's because they saw the entire film and it may really be one of the two best scenes of it), but I think it was nothing special. I would call it fine, yet boring.
So, to sum it up, Walken failed completely in one of his performances and in the other one he was nothing extraorinary. And both of the performances were extremely dul...

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Anthony Anderson - Kangaroo Jack

If you believe it or not, I liked Kangaroo Jack much more, than anyone would expect. It's not the best comedy I've ever seen, but it's very fine and I don't regret the time I spent with it. I've had a good laugh at some moments, and though I wasn't laughing out loud, I enjoyed it enough.
Anthony Anderson plays the best friend of the leading character of the film. After the series of crazy accidents they gotta go to Australia and give an envelope to the man called Smith. As they find out in the plane, the envelope is full of money and another series of crazy accidents start when a kangaroo kind of steals the envelope.
The first wrong thing about this nomination is that it's a category fraud. Anderson is co-lead, so if he was worthy of a nomination, than in the leading category.
The second wrong thing about it is that Anderson simply didn't deserve to be nominated. I absolutely don't see what was so bad about his performance that they needed to nominate him. Of course it is not a character acting and it's not even a perfect comedic performance. But Anderson succeeded in what the film wanted him to, so I don't have a complaint.
There is no doubt about the fact that Anderson is overacting throughout the whole film and there is not a single convincing moment in his performance. But he is funny most of the time.
On the other hand, we have Jerry O'Connell in the leading role. He is also overacting, but most of the time it's just not funny. It's happens to be embarrassing, instead.
However, Anderson's performance has got some bad moments. For example the moment when he informs O'Connell's character that the kangaroo has stolen the money. Some parts of the scene are in the trailer, but I don't know why. I really disliked the way Anderson's chosen to deliver his lines.
Or the scene at the end of the film, where his character should be finally serious for a moment. This scene should really be touching and maybe here it would fit, if Anderson play it convincingly. But he just didn't. I didn't believe him that he means the lines he was saying. And that's not very good.
But I think Anderson succeeded in what the film wanted him to, anyway. He was at least funny and entertaining. And though I don't usually watch films that are bad, or have bad performances I think that there were much more performance that would deserve to be nominated much more, than Anderson did...

Next Year: Worst Supporting Actor 2003

Don't worry. I'll finish best supporting actor 1998 soon. Right now I just had a crazy idea that I simply had to carry out. What if I reviewed the acting nominees for Razzie Awards, instead of Academy Awards? So right now I'm going to review the nominnes for the worst supporting actor 2003 and then I'll rank them (the first is the worst performance and the last is the best performance).
At the beginning I chose the year that will hopefully be easy to do. And who knows? Maybe I (and you) will like it so much, that I'll get stuck with this idea for the future of this blog. So here are the first nominees for my experiment:

Al Pacino - Gigli
Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the Hat
Anthony Anderson - Kangaroo Jack
Christopher Walken - Gigli and Kangaroo Jack
Sylvester Stallone - Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over

So write your predictions for my pick, or ranking in comments. You may also write your ranking of these performances. And you may write even your opinion about this idea of mine...