OSCARS OUTRAGES POLL - VOTE: Who's the worst best actor?
It's nice that Oscar voters finally gave an award to a comedic performance, but they must've been drunk to give it to Lee Marvin for falling off his horse pie-eyed in "Cat Ballou." Poor Richard Burton no doubt went out and got blotto that night when he lost that elusive best-actor trophy again, this time for "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold." (He ended up going to his grave as Oscar's biggest loser.) Speaking of death, the only reason Henry Fonda and John Wayne won was because they were croaking. Speaking of old timers: Paul Newman and Al Pacino only won because they were ridiculously overdue; now they're stuck with golden statuettes on their mantles for mediocre movies (OK, one of those flicks was actually awful — guess which one).
Geoffrey Rush wasn't even the lead star of "Shine" — that kid who played his role early in the film really had the most face time and owned that pic — but Rush (like Pacino and Cliff Robertson) had the disability.
If Jack Nicholson had one ounce of human decency he'd give back the Oscar he won for "As Good as It Gets" — he only got it 'cause, well, he's Jack and must be worshipped. (And, come on, he already has two others! Well, maybe one and a half, considering that "Terms of Endearment" jobbie was in supporting.) Academy members didn't feel it was enough that Jack Lemmon merely had that supporting Oscar for "Mr. Roberts," so they gave him one in the lead race for one of the most unwatchably bad movies ever made and that's saying something considering all of the competition starring Dean Martin, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Ronald Reagan .




Both Dean Martin and Ronald Reagan had their share of bad movies, true, but they also had a few gems in their long acting careers, too. Martin had "The Young Lions," "Rio Bravo" and "Some Came Running." Reagan had "Kings Row," "Storm Warning" and "The Hasty Heart."
Posted by: Bryan | November 04, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Tom, love your columns. Great work!
Posted by: Brandon W | November 04, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Whatever. Save the Tiger rules and Jack Lemmon rules in it.
Al Pacino's the worst of the bunch in what's probably the worst Picture nominee ever.
Posted by: RBurton | November 04, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Wow! Calling Best Supporting Actor a "half" of an award.
What a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.
Posted by: Michael | November 04, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Tom, I just love your columns and stories about the Oscars. But I don't care for this series of "Worst Winners." It implies that each of the performances listed is not worthy of the award, which is definitely not the case in any of those listed. I would prefer "Which one would you change ?"
Posted by: Augie6 | November 04, 2007 at 07:14 AM
Fonda's win was one of the best of all time. He was due and old an dying, but superb nonetheless.
Posted by: Gustavo H.R. | November 04, 2007 at 06:43 AM
I voted for Pacino, he is a good actor, but that movie was not Oscar worthy nor was his performance. a close second is Crowe in Galdiator... an overhyped movie with an overhyped performer in a overhyped role.
Posted by: Boidiva02 | November 04, 2007 at 01:01 AM