Buena Vista Pictures | Release Date: June 7, 2002
8.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 92 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
68
Mixed:
12
Negative:
12
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
kublay0880Dec 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 different types of actors, this was a big fail.
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
0
AppleH.Jun 14, 2002
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 found this helpful
0
M.L.M.Jul 15, 2002
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 found this helpful
3
MichaelF.Jun 10, 2002
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 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 found this helpful
1
JoviJun 9, 2002
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 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 found this helpful
2
JJJun 19, 2002
Very unfunny and extremely undeft. Hopkins just had about 2 moments; same with rock. That was all!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JerryH.Jun 7, 2002
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 found this helpful
0
[Anonymous]Dec 2, 2005
In a word: Awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChadS.Jul 16, 2002
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" 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 found this helpful