IMDb > Bad Company (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Bad Company
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Bad Company More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 192 reviews in total 

34 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

Clichéd, undistinguished but still brainless fun

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
15 February 2004

Hayes is a suave, distinguished spy with the CIA who is part of a set up to buy a stolen nuclear weapon and then capture those involved. When he is killed mid-operation, his handler goes to the only man who can replace him, his twin brother. However his brother Jake is a hustler in New York City and not spy material. Oakes has nine days to get him ready to take over his brother's identity and take up the assignment.

Despite the awful reviews, I still decided to give this film a go because I was in the mood for a dumb film that really didn't require me to think even once: this was that film! The film deserved every bad review it got - the only thing you need to worry about is whether or not you can accept the massive weakness or not. The plot is a real shambles and if you think about it logically then it all goes to hell. The idea that this is a reasonable plot, even for this type of film, is absurd. The script backs this up with dialogue that is fitting for a stupid comedy but not for the situations in the plot (`does it play dvd's?' or dialogue about Dr's Dre and Irving while trying to stall terrorists). Some of it is funny, but to be honest, if you dislike Chris Rock then there will be practically nothing for you.

The plot brings the bomb back to the US towards the end in an effort to inject tension and urgency into the action, but it doesn't really work. The action is reasonably slick but it isn't ever really exciting - only polished like a product. The action, like everything else, is quite clichéd and not distinctive enough to really stand out from the crowd of other action movies. The gags about race are subtle but still quite broad in the style of Rock. I didn't find it offensive, but I never really understand why films have to constantly perpetuate racial myths such as all black people listen to hip hop and like certain sports etc. Some of it is funny though.

Rock is the main reason for this; as I said, if you like him then you should enjoy this as most of the comedy is driven by him (even if nothing is anywhere near the sharpness of his act). He is not very funny but he helps the film have an overall comic tone that works pretty well Hopkins is totally slumming it. He manages an air of cool detachment but the material is way below him and his autopilot light is on the whole time. Stomare is poor and none of the villains really bring genuine menace - Eastern European hoods and clichés that they are. Beauvais is sexy - but that is all she is here for, to put on black underwear! Her character breezes in and breezes out with no real reason or consequence, plainly all she is here for is to have a bit of sexy black ass in there - something that Washington doesn't bring.

Overall this is a slickly made film that is clichéd, absurd, undistinguished and not as entertaining as it intends to be. Despite the fact that the film is very average and not really one to stand out, it can be quite enjoyable if you are ready for that. If you can turn off your brain and lower your standards then this can be OK, however just don't expect it to be great no matter what you do.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

This movie is `bad' company for the serious filmgoer.

Author: jdesando from United States
16 June 2002

When does a knighted actor collect a paycheck? When he acts benightedly in a cliched spy thriller that is a virtual textbook of Hollywood expectations, right down to the scruffy mid-eastern terrorists and the oversized red digital readout on a nuclear bomb.

Anthony Hopkins plays a CIA veteran who must train a streetwise kid, played by Chris Rock, how to act like a real agent in 9 days. You can guess the outcome; in fact you can guess every scene before it unfolds. Movies like this make me know I couldn't do reviewing for a day job-I'd have to see bombs like this everyday. Did I say bomb again? Did we just have one come to America in `Sum of All Fears'?

I am committed to saying something favorable for all movies if I can. Hopkins is always interesting to watch: he underplays here with a `sang froid' that would make Hannibal Lecter proud. The bad side of `Bad Company' is the bug-eyed, monotone, hysterical Chris Rock, who may have been medicated for this role because I didn't have to cover my ears this time-I just bore up under his boring delivery.

Brooke Smith, who was the captured girl in `Silence of the Lambs', plays Hopkins' partner. `Lambs' this is not.

The film moves rapidly enough for espionage junkies. There, I said 2 good things. The movie still is `bad' company for the serious filmgoer.



Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Not Bad Company

Author: krorie from Van Buren, Arkansas
9 June 2002

After reading so many negative reviews of this movie, I expected the worst and almost didn't see it. But I was in the mood for a movie and it was the only one showing that I hadn't already seen that was even remotely of interest to me. To my surprise I enjoyed the movie and where I think so many critics went wrong was to view this movie as a comedy, which it really isn't, except for a few humorous moments as might be expected in any such action movie. And Anthony Hopkins actually played his role the way it should have been played. It was not a role calling for a wild comic genius but one calling for a very serious-minded professional who is involved in trying to train a novice in just a few days for a deadly game involving a nuke. Chris Rock also played his role as it should have been played and restrained himself from his usual antics, as in "Lethal Weapon 4." Not a great movie but much better than the awful "The Sum Of All Fears."

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

The latest Chris Rock action comedy that apparently doesn't realize that it's a comedy.

5/10
Author: Michael DeZubiria (wppispam2013@gmail.com) from Luoyang, China
27 December 2002

Chris Rock stars as a CIA agent and a street hustler, twin brothers separated at birth. When the more successful brother, Kevin (ironically the one who got his act together and made a life for himself, yet also the one who got himself killed) is shot escaping a touchy sting operation in which he and his team try to buy a stolen nuclear weapon with cyber money that doesn't exist in real life, the CIA are faced with abandoning a 2 year project and risking themselves because their new enemies are going to want to know what happened to their deal or seeking out Kevin's twin brother Jake, who makes a living whipping the crap out of unsuspecting chess players in Central Park and selling scalped tickets to just about any event you can imagine.

At this point in the film, it's clear that the premise is a remarkably strong one for an action comedy - the irony of having a street hustler suddenly thrown into a top secret CIA operation. And when you throw in Chris Rock as the hustler and Anthony Hopkins as his new mentor, it seems that you simply can't go wrong. Unfortunately, the movie seems to lose track of the fact that it is a comedy, and in more ways that just forgetting to throw in some good one-liners.

Bad Company was made and scheduled to be released before September 11th, but was then delayed for obvious reasons (similar to the obvious reasons that delayed the release of the much more incendiary Collateral Damage, given its subject matter). Because the movie was written before the attacks, the writers can't have been expected to have known what bad taste it was to center the plot on a stolen nuclear device that was meant to level a major city on the eat coast. I don't hold that against it because of the 9/11 attacks, but only because it is such a tired premise. When are we going to see some good action movies that are about something other than one guy who has to save a whole city from terrorists with big bombs?

There are points in the movie where it seems that the writers stopped and said, `Oh wait, this is supposed to be a comedy,' and threw in a few completely unamusing jokes here and there, mostly in the form of totally inappropriate one-liners from Rock that almost invariably fall completely flat. He and Hopkins do, however, have a bit of chemistry onscreen, but it is mostly wasted. This is a flashy Bruckheimer production, obviously, but it is one of the least interesting action films that Bruckheimer has turned out in years. Granted, most of his productions are cheesy crap, but this one even manages to be boring despite itself.

I watched Bad Company right after watching Men in Black II, and so was already prepared for disappointment, but I found myself trying to figure out why exactly the movie is called Bad Company. Surely it can't be because the CIA is forced to employ someone literally off the street, because he turns out to be remarkably bright and much more capable than they had anticipated. Then at the end of the movie, just as the bad guy is about to get killed, he says something about how we Americans think we're so great but we just sit here while people all over the world suffer and die, and we just watch it on our televisions and grab another burger. This is, of course, disturbingly true, and it is not a small part of the reason that four airplane were hijacked in late 2001. It's something that Americans love to ignore so that we can pretend we're victims. The victims on September 11th were the people in the buildings and the people in the planes and al of their families, the country itself was not.

Does `Bad Company,' then, refer to the company that the rest of the world is in, being in the company of America? It seems that the message that this film leaves resonating in your mind at the end is about what a selfish and greedy country America is, and how capable we are to ignore the suffering of the rest of the world as long as we have our fancy cars and our money and our heart disease instead of starvation. In this case, I guess Bad Company's not such a bad movie after all. It certainly gives a pretty potent wake up call at the end, but one that will probably be largely ignored along with the rest of the film. Ah well.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Although Predictable and Full of Cliches, This Funny Action Movie Entertains

7/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
23 November 2003

In Prague, the CIA secret agent Kevin Pope (Chris Rock) is killed in a mission with Oakes (Anthony Hopkins). They were trying to recover a nuclear bomb from the hands of some mercenaries. In order to proceed with the operation, Jake Hayes (Chris Rock), twin of Kevin, is recruited by CIA to act as if he were his brother. Jake is a rascal ticker scalper and his dead brother was an exquisite man. The CIA agents have nine day to make Jake as refined as he brother was. Although having a plot very predictable and full of cliches, this movie is a funny action movie, almost a comedy. Therefore, it objective of entertainment is accomplished. My vote is seven.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Very entertaining

Author: Thomas G Vorm
14 November 2002

This movie was very entertaining but certainly not great. I think Chris Rock gave a great performance and Anthony Hopkins is always wonderful. The action sequences were very good, especially the camera work in the field car chase. I'm glad I didn't see it in the theater, but I'm glad I saw it just the same.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Not what I expected

8/10
Author: jrdolan from Chicago, IL
5 December 2002

I have to say, this movie caught me off guard. Aside from some incredible cinematic scenery (Prague is a beautiful city), I didn't expect this to be much of a movie. And while it may be difficult for some to believe that Chris Rock is CIA, I found this movie to address something serious and use Rock's natural humor to both lighten and relieve the audience. There has to be something said for how funny Chris Rock is, regardless of the setting. This movie is worth watching if you are in the mood for a funny movie with an action filled plot.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining but not great!

6/10
Author: anton-6 from sweden
6 July 2002

Chris Rock is hilarious in this film. Anthony Hopkins is good too.

It includes many funny scenes and the action is also good. But the plot it's nothing special at all and the film is not very bad but not very good either. If Chris Rock were not in it, it would be bad. I would rate it a 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as scathing reviews...

Author: andrew-413 from Cape Town, SA
7 April 2003

This film, as far as action films goes, is really not all that bad. I normally don't like the genre too much for it's continuance of formula, but this film was a surprise. The choreography was very well done and there were some good one-liners contributing to some amusement along the way. Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock act well in this film, alongside the twisted Russian mafia boss whom was brilliant, also to be found acting in the superb Guy Richie film 'Snatch'. The photography of Prague was stunning, great camera angles and a dramatic mood portrayed well in this beautiful city.

Regarding the Trevor Rabin track 'BMBBO'... I loved immediately it for its grace and sombre melancholic mood when I heard it in the film, but was so mistaken when finally getting hold of the track... what trickery! The beautiful strings and violin, the elegance and subtlety, gets butchered a minute in by tacky electronica. what a shame to have this masterpiece ruined. In the film obviously adaptations were made for particular scenes and I got the high-octane 'alternative' version, as released on the CD, which by the way, sounds like something from the 80's, a Jean-Michelle Jare lasertropic overdose.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

not so bad I want my two hours back...

5/10
Author: Désirée Greverud from Long Beach, CA
28 June 2002

...but I'm glad I used a free ticket to see it.

Anthony Hopkins is clearly slumming. It's like he polished of his cameo character from Mission Impossible 2 and set it to work for a whole film.

The movie is supposed to be an action comedy but the action scenes are limited to a few machine gun firefights conducted by people who can't hit targets 10 feet away, and a single car chase.

The comedy is limited to hearing Hopkins use the phrase "get in the car, b*tch" and some Chris Rock moments. It was simply neither action-packed enough or funny enough for the genre.

The whole film felt like a first or second draft of the script; like no one bothered to polish & refine the concept. It needed better, more original & well thought out action scenes, and better humor.

Not bad free, but not even worth a matinee. I give it a 5 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history