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...

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: Al Pacino - Gigli

First of all, a little confession of mine. I have never seen Gigli. Ergo, I have never seen it full. I've heard so many bad things about it that I just didn't have enough courage to actually watch it. So I just made myself sure that Pacino and Walken only play in one scene and I watched just their parts. Therefore my review(s) might not be good enough, because I haven't seen the performance in the context of the film, but in this case I don't think it will rule the objectivity.
Al Pacino is a living legend and undoubtably a great actor. I really didn't believe that his performance in Gigli will be bad, because I didn't believe he could ever be bad. Luckily, his reputation wasn't destroyed in my eyes after watching his really supporting performance as a mob boss in Gigli. From the first second we can see Pacino is really enjoying playing this character. Sometimes an actor needs to just chill out and take a role that isn't a challenge for him and that isn't very difficult to play.
And Pacino used this opportunity. I mean, he had nothing to lose. Of course he couldn't get an Oscar nomination for such role, but his performance really has nothing to do on the list of the five worst supporting performances of the year.
And back to the performance. The fact is that he is happy to be there and play this character. On the other hand, he is overacting many time, which is obvious. If an actor has a lots of fun playing the character, very probably will he be overacting. But his character didn't need to be acted with the best character acting.
Pacino loved to be on the screen in this role. And we really like watching him. That's all that matters...

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...

Worst Supporting Actor 2003: Alec Baldwin - The Cat in the Hat

Alec Baldwin received his only Razzie nomination to date for portraying Larry in The Cat in the Hat.
The Cat in the Hat is a very strange film. Its whole content is meant for children. But this version is completely inappropriate for them. So its biggest problem is that it doesn't know who does it want to be for. Therefore there are some very embarassing moments that make this film bad.
Alec Baldwin plays the biggest bad-ass in The Cat in the Hat. He is trying to ball the mother of the leading characters (played by Dakota Fanning and Spencer Breslin), but he hates her children, especially the one played by Spencer Breslin and so he's trying to suspend him to some camp (or somewhere, it's not important).
If you believe it or not, there's not any purpose for Baldwin's character's behaviour. We never know why he wants to be with Fanning's and Breslin's mother. We never know, why he hates her children. It is happening, because the screenplay says so and that's all. Therefore it's extremely bad character to play.
Many other actors would try to find this reason and somehow reflect it into their performance. But Baldwin doesn't do it. He doesn't care about this fact. He plays his part very self-consciously. And that's a big problem. He is extremely overacting, which wouldn't be so bad in this kind of roles. But he plays as if he wanted to be the main star of this film. As if he wanted to be the only one to shine. And that's the worst thing he could. An actor should know, where is his place.
So because of this self-consciousness he never has got a chemistry with some of his colleagues. And there's nothing worse than this for an actor.
I hope Baldwin won't be reading this review, so that he won't feel offended and he won't try to contact me publicly. But, just in case: Usually I adore Alec as an actor (I also enjoyed his so much criticised Oscar hosting.), this is just a performance that just didn't impress me, at all...

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...