Bad Company


Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 33
  2. Negative: 14 out of 33

Where To Watch

Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. 80
    Deft, funny and intelligently scary.
  2. Joel Schumacher directs with far less fetishism than he might have, while producer Jerry Bruckheimer kicks up only a fraction of the bull dust usually visible in his projects.
  3. 63
    There is much more suspense in this sequence than a similar scene in last week's "The Sum of All Fears" -- which wasn't intended to be funny.
  4. Hopkins and Rock are a surprisingly good mix; Hopkins actually underplays his role as a company man with a barely acknowledged conscience, while Rock's manic impulses aren't allowed to run riot.
  5. Anthony Hopkins, with a toothpick and a slouch. Fabulous!
  6. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    It's almost impossible to enjoy this uneven but mostly exciting popcorn pic without flinching at a few plot elements that feel a bit too real for comfort.
  7. 60
    From the plotting and the characterizations to the explosions and excessive use of blue light filters, everything about Bad Company has been done and seen before.
  8. Bad Company would just be another silly, intermittently funny, buddy comedy (Anthony Hopkins is Rock's training agent) were it not for a plot unlaughably close to current events.
  9. 50
    As in all Jerry Bruckheimer-produced summer blockbusters, the premise is paper-thin and the action sequences play out with assembly-line regularity.
  10. 50
    Company almost seems like the product of a post-Sept. 11 world. Like a cartoon version of a real threat, the villains are terrorists of a non-specific nationality with an ill-defined anti-American agenda and a tendency to spout complaints too clichéd to take seriously.
  11. 50
    I won't tell you I didn't enjoy parts of Bad Company, because I did. But the enjoyment came at moments well-separated by autopilot action scenes and stunt sequences that outlived their interest.
  12. Feels stale, bloated and willing to get by on sheer familiarity.
  13. It's fast, snappy and entertaining in a superficial way. But it lacks gravity and authenticity and seems more like a product than an attempt to tell a story.
  14. It's fun to watch for a while. But the movie runs much too long, and a few funny bits aside, most of the comedy writing is lame.
  15. Though they're a good pair (Hopkins and Rock), this isn't a very good movie. It's slick but hollow.
  16. 42
    Watching Rocks shows, we know he's sharper than the average actor. But watching him flail and play funny in movies that aren't as smart as him is simply depressing. Someone give this man a good role. And please, let him do a few more takes -- these scenes can't be his best efforts.
  17. Whether you care if they find them (terrorists) or not may depend on how much you've been able to withstand Bad Company's sensory overload of firefights, vehicular mayhem, techno-cool swagger and enough bumptious contrivances to fill several seasons of daffy prime-time soaps.
  18. Some of this stuff is uncomfortably close to minstrelsy. Bad Company closes on a patriotic note in a brief scene that pays heartfelt tribute to the terrorist-thwarting sacrifices of the CIA. Timing is everything, I guess.
  19. 40
    The motor of the plot, involving nuclear terrorism, not only knocked Bad Company out of last year's release schedule due to 9/11 sensitivity, it stops Rock and Hopkins from sustaining a comic rapport. The waste is criminal.
  20. 38
    Schumacher doesn't leave an imprint on the film -- it could be the work of any second-rate director.
  21. Baltimore Sun
    Reviewed by: Michael Sragow
    Bad Company is about an undercover brother, but it will never be confused with "Undercover Brother."
  22. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    Leaves a bad taste, not only because of its bad-luck timing, but also the staleness of its script.
  23. A longwinded, predictable scenario.
  24. Lacks the bite that can equal the Bruckheimer bark.
  25. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: Jami Bernard
    The main problem with this whole Jerry Bruckheimer-produced mess is that they took a promising comedy setup and squandered it by trying to make a legitimate spy thriller out of it.
  26. The picture lasts 111 minutes, partly because of numerous false endings. Now, that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
  27. The film was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by Joel Schumacher, and reflects the worst of their shallow styles: wildly overproduced, inadequately motivated every step of the way and demographically targeted to please every one (and no one).
  28. 25
    A Jerry Bruckheimer production, which gives the movie a disquieting sense of stupidity.
  29. 20
    Like many of the nonpolitical terrorist-as-villain spectaculars that have been held back after Sept. 11, has the whiff of something gone stale. Though it may have sat on the shelf for a while, this project had gone bad long before it was released.
  30. New Times (L.A.)
    Reviewed by: Robert Wilonsky
    If this it supposed to be comedy, why isn't it ever, for one second, funny?
  31. 20
    This cookie-cutter spy thriller depends on the chemistry between Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock. Um, wait, there isn't any.
  32. Predictably soulless techno-tripe, this Bruckheimer-in-a-can thriller is leavened only by the ludicrous notion of Chris Rock playing separated twins.
  33. Reviewed by: Sam Allis
    The major problem with this alleged comic thriller is it is neither funny nor thrilling. Neither the heavies nor the good guys are believable.
User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 92 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 16
  2. Negative: 9 out of 16
  1. Dec 18, 2012
    It was a shame to see Anthony Hopkins in a movie like this, who the hell thought that these couple could work together?? totally differentIt was a shame to see Anthony Hopkins in a movie like this, who the hell thought that these couple could work together?? totally different types of actors, this was a big fail. Full Review »
  2. [Anonymous]
    Dec 2, 2005
    In a word: Awful.