MOVIES

The Best & Worst Bad Boys Movies, According To Rotten Tomatoes

The “Bad Boys” film with the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score is the second film in the franchise. With a critic score of 24%, “Bad Boys 2” was a critical misfire when it debuted in 2003, eight years after the original. Audiences were a bit kinder to Bay’s second “Bad Boys” effort, giving it a decent 78% audience score on the platform. Critics notably took issue with the film’s lack of substance, deeming it a typical, soulless action film. 

Veteran film critic Roger Ebert absolutely despised the release, giving it just one star, primarily because of how mean-spirited and cruel it was. “There was once a time when a hero would sacrifice his own life rather than injure innocent bystanders. No longer. The heroes of ‘Bad Boys II’ are egotistical monsters, concerned only with their power, their one-liners, their weapons, their cars, their desires,” he wrote. 

Surprisingly, the second lowest-rated “Bad Boys” film on Rotten Tomatoes is the first film. The film, which served as Bay’s theatrical debut, has a 44% critic score and the same 78% audience score as its sequel. Most critics found the first “Bad Boys” to be a competent and average action film that was elevated due to striking performances. “Billed as ‘an action comedy with attitude,’ it isn’t exactly the freshest thing on the block — with some minor changes it could have been a ‘Lethal Weapon installment’ — but the pairing of Martin Lawrence and Will Smith generates a winning comic chemistry,” wrote The Hollywood Reporter’s Michael Rechtshaffen in 1995.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS SEO LINKS