Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Bad Company
User Score
4.5 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 20 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 20
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 20
  3. Negative: 9 out of 20

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. AppleH.
    Jun 14, 2002
    0
    Bad Company has great lovable actors who are not allowed to demonstrate their skills. The final result is a BAD MOVIE! Don't waste your time or money.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. M.L.M.
    Jul 15, 2002
    0
    Horrible summer movie. Totally unbelievable mess. Trying to cash in on it's stars, who have no chemistry and look bored.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. RyanM.
    Jan 4, 2003
    4
    The first 20 minutes are ferociously funny, but then, for some reason, it thinks it has enough umph to be a full-fledged CIA undercover spy flick...which it doesn't.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. Gilbert
    Dec 4, 2002
    5
    Takes "watchable but unspectacular" to new levels. Horribly unfunny and facile, while still managing not to be actively bad. Joel Schumacher can make classic cinema when he tries ("Falling Down"). But unfortunately, he doesn't, very often ("Batman And Robin"). Someone hit him.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. ErinB.
    Jun 10, 2002
    10
    Great, suspenseful, keeps you on your seat every moment. I believe that this has to be one of the show stoppers of all time, even better than the movie made after me.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. MichaelF.
    Jun 10, 2002
    3
    I must say that this is a BAD film. The only truly good thing about this film is that it is never once boring. Hopkins is good at having fun but was way too straight, no, sorry fellas, he doesn't dance or rap in this movie. Rock, who is usually horrible, probably was better in this than anything else that he's been in. It's funny, but it's never funny enough and it needed more laughs. Peter Stormare, who I really like, was HORRIBLE. Andas for the devil, Joel Shumacer, he has, once again, manged to make another "who cares and it sucks" movie. At times, the film his nice cinematography, but the rest of the time it's just the usual. The action scenes aren't nearly as good as they should be for a Bruckheimer production. … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. Jovi
    Jun 9, 2002
    1
    They should change the title to Bad Film. Who thought this pair would make a hit? Yes, there are moments, but not enough to keep you entertained. The story is weak, the humour dull, and as for the action sequences... Shumaker should take a class on filming movies with balls. Isn't it bad enough that he destroyed the 'Franchise?' And what is it with Hopkins and his off again on again tooth pick? Come on... When you need gimmicks like that, you know there is something seriously wrong here. A movie with a serous subject matter should be taken seriously... leave the tongue and cheek to Lethal Weapon and directors who can pull it off!!!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. CaptainCraig
    Feb 20, 2005
    4
    Hopkins and Rock are not a good screen mix. How that got a screen master like Hopkins to work with a comic idoit and think they actually work together is beyond me. The director couldn't decide if this was to be a real spy thriller or a Jackie Chan flic!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. Al
    Jul 4, 2005
    10
    Great!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. JJ
    Jun 19, 2002
    2
    Very unfunny and extremely undeft. Hopkins just had about 2 moments; same with rock. That was all!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. JerryH.
    Jun 7, 2002
    1
    This is the single worst film of the year so far. Unwatchable. Yes, Hopkins and Rock have some moments, but this thing should have never seen the screen. The critics shouldn't take it so easy.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. DABuz
    Jul 22, 2002
    10
    It's a pretty good movie, and chris rock is starring again!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. DrewB.
    Jul 5, 2002
    6
    A pretty decent film. Has romance, action, crime and a kick of comedy.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. [Anonymous]
    Dec 2, 2005
    0
    In a word: Awful.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. ChadS.
    Jul 16, 2002
    3
    Joel Schumacher reminds me of the Steve Martin character in "Grand Canyon" who swore off making films without any redeeming qualities. Apparently, the search for his soul began and ended with the excellent "Tigerland" because "Bad Company" is loud and depressing. The star-power of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock acquaints the audience with faint traces of entertainment in spots. Too much bang, bang!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
37 out of 100

Generally unfavorable - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 16 out of 33
  3. Negative: 14 out of 33
  1. Philadelphia Inquirer
    Reviewed by: Carrie Rickey
    50
    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.
    Read full review
  2. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: A.O. Scott
    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.
    Read full review
  3. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: Jami Bernard
    25
    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.
See all critic reviews »