Bad Company Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Two Mismatched Partners. One Messed Up Case!
The World is in Good Hands
These Two People Are In Bad Company!
When a CIA agent is killed during a nuclear arms purchase, his partner Oakes, recruits his twin brother, Jake Hayes. Jake had no idea he had a twin brother, let alone that he worked for the CIA. Jake, a.k.a. Michael Turner, has nine days to fill his brother's place. However, the enemy terrorists learn of his secret identity and kidnap his girlfriend/fiancee. He has to rescue them and save New York city from an imminent nuclear terrorist act.
| Anthony Hopkins | Officer Oakes |
| Chris Rock | Jake Hayes/Kevin Pope/Michael Turner |
| Kerry Washington | Julie |
| Brooke Smith | Officer Swanson |
| Garcelle Beauvais | Nicole |
| Peter Stormare | Adrik Vas |
| Gabriel Macht | Officer Seale |
| Adoni Maropis | Jarma/Dragan Henchman #1 |
| Matthew Marsh | Dragan Adjanic |
| Dragan Micanovic | Michelle 'The Hammer' Petrov |
| John Slattery | Roland Yates |
| Daniel Sunjata | Officer Carew |
| DeVone Lawson Jr. | Officer Parish |
| Wills Robbins | Officer McCain |
| Marek Vasut | Andre |
| Joel Schumacher |
5.30 out of 10 (13814 votes)
Visitor Reviews
THIS MOVIE IS BAD COMPANY FOR ANYONE WHO SEES IT
posted on 26 Aug 2009I went to the sneak preview of this BAD movie and it is a shame that such a good talent as Anthony Hopkins has to stoop so low to earn a living. Rock is rock and what more can I say. If you have to see this bomb then wait for the video stores to have it for rent. As far as I am concerned this movie was a total waste of time and talent.
"Bad Company" was an ok movie
posted on 31 Jul 2009I watched "Bad Company" and I thought it was ok. I couldn't really get into it but I forced myself to watch it. I like Chris Rock but he really wasn't using his comic abilities in this movie. I thought the storyline and the plot was interesting but it just didn't really interest me. Sir Anthony Hopkins did a pretty decent job but this wasn't his best performance. I think Chris Rock isn't a great choice for this genre of movies. He should stick to comedy. I'm not criticizing this movie or the two lead actors' performances. I'm just saying that I wasn't very interested in this movie though. I've seen a lot of bad movies and this wasn't a bad movie. Just uninteresting!! Anyways. Thanks for reading my review and kudos to those of you who liked it!!
Go see this...
posted on 02 May 2009It seems that my esteemed colleagues have missed the boat on this one. After all, this is a MOVIE. Fantasy and unrealism are common in movies; however, these two just want to pick this apart.I have seen this film, and with the right attitude, I went to see a funny movie. I got what I paid for... a funny, action packed, COMEDY.I love this film, and recommend it to anyone that likes to do any of the following:a. Laugh b. Laugh harder c. Watch James Bond, Shaft, or any other fantasy about spies, super heroes, villains, and the like. d. Laugh some more.Although Chris Rock vs. Anthony Hopkins was a startling combination; I found the chemistry worked, better than I would have ever thought. Chris Rock as Kevin Pope was very believable, and as Jake Hayes, the streetwise ticket seller, even more so.I would (and have!) recommend this movie to anyone looking for a great laugh! But beware, you have to remember, it is a movie...
Bad to the BONE
posted on 22 Apr 2009This film is horrible. Anthony Hopkins is boring and Chris Rock should take a page from Spike Lee's movie "Bamboozled" and STOP! All that shuckin and jivin is not in anymore and Chris should know better. And what was Anthony Hopkins thinking? Cha-ching Cha-ching.. Yes we know what--money.
This is the worse movie of the year. Joel Schumacher is an appalling director and should retire.I give this film a 0 out of 10.
Chris Rock as a CIA agent? HA HA HA HA!
posted on 20 Apr 2009From the beginning I was laughing at unintentional moments. Chris Rock's buggy-eyed CIA agent character completely ruined the mood. The movie has some half-decent action scenes though and OK suspense. Anthony Hopkins, much like the underplaying of Hannibal, pulled off a hauntingly good character that saved Rock from being too goofy. Some of Rock's jokes clicked good too, but there's absolutely nothing special about BAD COMPANY. Actually, it is too old-fashioned.A CIA agent is killed. What a coincidence, he had a twin brother whom they were both separated at birth. The CIA sell him on the old notion of saving the world if he finishes the mission his brother set out on in the first place.BAD COMPANY will only be remembered for being one of the last movies (if not, THE last) to be filmed at the World Trade Center, which ironically, the movie is centered around international terrorism and hatred towards the United States as well. With that in mind, and average performances from all involved, BAD COMPANY 's boring tendencies will make it easily forgotten.
Funny, but...
posted on 10 Apr 2009Anthony Hopkins is great as usual, and Chris Rock is hilarious, the laughs in the first half of the movie are nearly non stop. But Chris Rock as a CIA agent who in 5 days morphs from street punk to sophisticated covert CIA agent is implausible. The story line goes to hell in a hand-basket.The movie does have a poignant ending, and is worth watching for the mismatched combo of Hopkins and Rock together if you don't take it too seriously.
Just a bad film!
posted on 03 Mar 2009I couldn't agree more with what some people already said about this film: it's outright bad and full of cliches. Obviously the producers thought the recipe that worked so well for Will Smith might also do the trick for Chris Rock: a street-wise lower-class failure who gradually becomes a hero through love (to girl-friend and his fellow citizens). The bad guys partly look Arabic (at least the one in New York) or are from the Russian mafia or from Bosnia. It's all very clear so that even an audience with limited brains will get it. Especially Rock's character is so pathetic that I wonder why pc-conscious African-Americans aren't complaining? Or is this the way they want to be portrayed? I'd rather be Jar Jar Binks - he's at least cute. There's one moment when I wonder what was going on in those brains. The really (!) bad guy tells the good American guys that he's doing this because the Americans think they're so great and can rule the world and tell the others what to do. How's this supposed to sound in non-American ears I wonder? Or did they want to raise some sympathy for the terrorist before the end? But I guess you cannot expect too much thinking behind this film!
Another waste of people talent and production money
posted on 28 Feb 2009Why I say that? I see in movies over and over the same plot. This is just like 48 hrs. with Eddie and Nick. Chris Rock always gets lame scripts. Is like nobody has the time any more to write a decent script. What happen about telling a story with some action, romance or somehting. In certain old pictures people took the time to put a story together. Sir Tony Hopkins in this picture look like he was just walking through it. Chris Rock can play some serious roles if somebody put something together. But I guest in Hollywood it's all about the money now. Who cares what type of movie is out. As long they make their money back twice over. You know I think Sir Tony Hopkins only play in this movie to get another pay check. Especially since Mr. Hopkins has never played in an actually action film. Always serious roles. Like Tony Hopkins said he can't believe he is still working. I wonder if Sir Tony Hopkins only took this role because he never played along side a black man. Bad Company is horrible. ...
Terrible, terrible film
posted on 25 Feb 2009OK, there was only one reason why this film was made, and that was to assist in the Hollywood propaganda effort re the "war" on terrorism. In case we didn't understand that from the initial scenes, in which the "bad guys" were set up as Russians, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, etc..., we are told that the fate of the "free world" depends on Chris Rock. Notice that black Americans have gone from the "sidekick" role of the mid-90s to the star of the show (although still admittedly a "pawn") in this film: ie, as soon as the US needs black Americans to fight for it in wars (ever wonder what percentage of US soldiers is black/hispanic/other racial minorities?), they become 'central' characters in "save the world" thrillers. Joel Schumacher's previous film was 'Tigerland', for crying out loud! There's virtually no script, the humour is essentially nonexistent, save some attempted Rock oneliners, and the plot hardly held together. By setting up the US as the "free world" and the Middle East as the "other", shifty, terrorist breeding ground, the film fits in nicely with the ultra neo-liberal 'message' being conveyed by "free world" leaders George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard. For those who disagree with my statements, ask yourself what "terrorism" means...
not so bad I want my two hours back...
posted on 15 Feb 2009...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
Typical Schumacher production; decent for a single viewing
posted on 01 Feb 2009Joel Schumacher... a director with a pretty bad reputation among audiences, partly due to him(from the opinions of the fans of the franchise) ruining the Batman franchise, which Tim Burton had done such a good job of resurrecting/building. Many think he's an awful director, but the fact is that he's efficient, fast and cheap. He gets his movies done fast and on a reasonably low budget, compared to many other Hollywood directors. Personally, I find him to be a fairly talentless director, but I haven't seen Phone Booth(which I've heard many great things about), and some claim that his movies are underrated. So here he teams up with Jerry Bruckheimer, the famous Hollywood big-time executive producer who has made tons of newer action flicks, and puts Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins together in a buddy-comedy-action-flick about spies. There's no doubt about it; the film is fairly typical Bruckheimer action flick, and it doesn't have a lot to offer, that we haven't seen before, often better. But I think Rock and Hopkins make a good "odd couple", and they have pretty good chemistry. The plot is pretty tame and typical, and it tries to keep itself interesting by throwing in a bunch of twists. The pacing is decent, and it's possible to sit attentively through the film, once, provided that you like either Hopkins or Rock(or both) enough, and enjoy this type of films. The acting is good enough. The characters are diverse, credible and well-written enough. The action is pretty good, Hopkins has some cool scenes. The humor is good, Rock and Hopkins have some great moments together. The dialog is good, especially between Rock and Hopkins. They play characters exactly like what we've seen from them before, and it works pretty good. All in all, a decent but entirely by-the-numbers action-comedy flick, good for a single viewing for fans of the people involved in the production of the film. I recommend it to big fans of Rock and Hopkins, and possibly Schumacher and Bruckheimer as well. 6/10
A little slow but worthwhile
posted on 23 Jan 2009This seems like a rehash of CIA movies and it's no wonder the CIA had problems finding Osama (there's a funny moment where Chris Rock dresses down a too-cool-for-himself spy: "You can't even find Saddam Hussein...You tell a sister to find Saddam Hussein at 8 in the morning and by 5 o'clock she'd be saying 'Saddam get out of my house!'" I'm paraphrasing obviously.) However, Hopkins and Rock make a surprisingly effective team with more chemistry than other on-screen duos. Rock's Jake emerges as a wanna-do-well with a sincere love for his girlfriend, who emerges as a female with a mind of her own (despite an interfering family), a tenderness for his churchoging mama, and a sense of right and wrong. It's a little absurd when he yells while chasing down the thermonuclear device that is the focus of this spy thriller, "I wanna be home and watch Oprah!" Oprah would tell him to do the right thing too.
Chris Rock is not Chris Tucker!!
posted on 08 Jan 2009I kind of liked this movie but it never took off. Chris Rock is funny and has good lines but his attempt to be a serious hero was very far fetched.
Hopkins was very dull in this movie and had no chemistry with Rock at all.
This was a failed attempt to follow in Rush Hour's footsteps. I would say that everything in this movie is impossible. It's just plain boring.�
Ban Chris Rock!
posted on 05 Nov 2008This is one of those movies that makes you think "Why, oh why did he accept to do this garbage?". I obviously refer to Anthony Hopkins. His charm is 100% countered by Chris Rock's bad performance, annoying voice and out of place jokes; at least I think they were jokes since I didn't laugh one time at his wise-cracks.Make no mistake people: Chris Rock is not funny. He's one of the worst comedians ever to come out from Saturday Night Live. He's right up there with Chris Farley, Randy Quaid and Jan Hooks. Now why put him right next to Anthony Hopkins in a movie that was clearly a bad idea from start? In the end it wasn't even worth the experiment.In the first place it's a script you have already memorized: the bum that has to take the hero's place and save the world. I could've done my peace with it if the movie was well done, but not even that I got. The story is boring, the jokes are not funny, the plot is not the least believable... and I can't find more words in my limited english vocabulary to describe how awful this film was. This is the first movie starring Anthony Hopkins I regret to have seen.
A light-weight action flick that delivers what you expect
posted on 30 Oct 2008BAD COMPANY is what you'd expect when you put Joel Schumacher and Jerry Bruckheimer together. It's a slick, fast-paced light-weight fluff action flick with a few jokes here and there, the requisite plot holes, 2-dimensional characters, 8th grade dialogue and sappy ending. Still, there are worse ways to kill an evening, I suppose.
Anti-terrorist buddy adventure
posted on 28 Oct 2008A more unlikely pairing in a buddy-film thriller is hard to imagine, and yet the combination of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock actually works, and not entirely because Hopkins is always so reliably great. The plot is suitably complex, with intrigue and Czech and New York settings and rival groups of bad men and a stolen suitcase bomb and triple-crosses and all that sort of thing. The ostensible mismatch of Rock with a serious part is covered by a complex plot twist in which his unknown identical twin brother is killed and he steps in to save the day. Often amusing and pleasantly complex and frequently tense, the film is entertaining enough. There's quite a bit of post-September 11 mythology going on here, with the CIA reckoning the human cost of terrorism, an extremely well-coordinated emergency response, wonderful technology, and people in charge who mostly know what they're doing. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking?
Not what I expected
posted on 14 Oct 2008I don't really know what I expected from this film, but I certainly found much more than I had been looking for. Given that it stars Chris Rock, I did expect a great deal of irreverent, silly comedy. What I found, instead, was an interesting spy film and a very, very odd buddy picture.The acting from both Rock and Hopkins is exceptional. The plot, while a bit thin, is interesting.The film pulled me in and held me from beginning to end.
waste of time, money and film
posted on 14 Sep 2008Because he gets to play the part of identical twins, Chris Rock is given the opportunity – rare for a lead player – of having his character die in the opening scene. Considering the quality of the film as a whole, he might well regret that BOTH characters don't get to bite the dust early on.But stuck in the film he is – and he, co-star Anthony Hopkins, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Joel Schumacher are going to have to live with the stain of this embarrassment on their records for a very long time to come (hence, the appropriately named `Bad Company'). The screenplay by James Richman and Michael Browning tells the tedious tale of one Jack Hayes, a ne'er-do-well New York City shyster, who is employed by the CIA to impersonate the twin brother he never knew he had, a brother who was recently killed in action trying to retrieve a portable nuclear bomb from some Middle Eastern terrorists. Anthony Hopkins plays Gaylord Oakes, a seasoned CIA operative whose job it is to `groom' Hayes for the mission.It would be hard to overestimate just how mediocre this production really is. The storyline is flat and unimaginative, the villains bland and colorless, the humor weak and poorly executed, the action scenes routine and strangely truncated. The `grooming' sequences are particularly unimpressive, since Hayes seems like essentially the same person after the lessons as he was before them (think of it as James Bond meets `My Fair Lady'). About the only news here is that Schumacher seems, for the most part, to have abandoned his Cuisinart-style approach to directing and editing, choosing instead to shoot and splice the film in a basically humdrum, static way. The result is a talky film in which no one says anything that is of even the slightest interest either to each other or to the audience stuck watching the spectacle. Apparently, the action film genre has become so depleted of ideas that the best filmmakers can do at this point is to concoct a fantasy scenario in which a wisecracking Average Joe gets to save the world from total nuclear destruction in time to say `I do' to that longsuffering girl waiting patiently back home. This sort of preposterous premise may work well in `Austin Powers'-like parodies, but it hardly merits serious attention in a straight action-adventure tale such as this one. And frankly, I am beginning to question the appropriateness of using the threat of nuclear annihilation by terrorists as a source for mindless mass audience entertainment. When will some gifted filmmaker finally come along to address this issue with the kind of seriousness and gravity that it so obviously deserves?Neither Hopkins nor Rock can be faulted for their performances. They do the best they can with the material they've been handed. Hopkins, in particular though, needs to start signing on to more challenging assignments before the lease runs out on his reputation as one of the world's premier actors. About the best that can be said for `Bad Company' is that it affords us an opportunity to armchair travel to photogenic Prague (remember `Slaughterhouse-Five'). That exquisite locale at least gives us something to look at for the two hours we're stranded in the theatre.
good acting is not always necessary for a nice movie.
posted on 26 Aug 2009Although Chris Rock ain't a great actor I think he did a good job in this movie. It had good jokes and a lot of humor.
Anthony Hopkins again shows he knows what acting is. I'm waiting for his next movie...... :)