User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 87 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 67 out of 87
  2. Negative: 12 out of 87
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 18, 2012
    1
    It 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 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
  7. 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!
  8. JJ
    Jun 19, 2002
    2
    Very unfunny and extremely undeft. Hopkins just had about 2 moments; same with rock. That was all!
  9. 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.
  10. [Anonymous]
    Dec 2, 2005
    0
    In a word: Awful.
  11. 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 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
Metascore
37

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

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