Bad Company

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.

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

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.

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.

7 June 2002. I went into the theater knowing that the critics already panned the movie. But by the time the credits finished, I felt hopeful. The production, cinematography was rich and deep, there was a feeling of seriousness but with a touch of humor. The blending of comedy and spy-thriller is not easy at all to produce and play well. But Anthony Hopkins played a CIA supervisor caught in the middle between someone telling him what to do and Hopkins trying to tell someone else what to do, a rather different angle and change for him. There was a seriousness throughout this movie that made the movie flow with intensity and Chris Rock didn't come across as some super hero. He came across as a serious actor who knows something about humor.

This movie was about relationships, loyalty, about a CIA that was portrayed more real than most movies. The CIA in this movie made mistakes, wasn't invincible, but pressed ahead. I loved this movie, the risks that everyone took on this movie. The critics apparently just didn't understand what they producers and scriptwriters, and what Chris Rock was trying to accomplish here. I don't like Chris Rock usually, but in this movie he really impressed me with his ability to be serious and at the same time funny. This movie was believable, even the bad guy at the end who made a strong statement about "why" there is terror in the world.

But Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins really were the heroes here because what movie really was about was people and what was really important about living. Commendations go to the Director, Chris Rock, and Anthony Hopkins for making a movie, getting out of the box and pushing the envelope by making something real, not superficially dumb. Chris Rock stood up for something that usually gets swept under the rug, and that is respect and devotion. He's not even the hero's hero in this movie and he doesn't try to play a role that's over the top here. And that demonstrates Chris's integrity as a good actor.