Critics’ reviews

Bad Boys II (2003)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 36: 0 positive, 3 mixed, 8 negative.

Back to our review of Bad Boys II

36
Positive
0
Mixed
3
Negative
8

Most critics find Bad Boys II overlong, repetitive and exhausting, with action that overwhelms a thin cop-buddy story. The limited praise centres on the stunt work and visual invention: individual shots and chases impress even reviewers who dislike the film. Empire singles out the first Miami highway chase, while finding the surrounding material too weak to sustain it. Across the reviews, the recurring complaint is that the sheer quantity of destruction makes the spectacle less effective.

The differences concern how much pleasure survives the excess, and how objectionable the excess becomes. Total Film offers a comparatively forgiving assessment, enjoying the leads’ wisecracks despite the stale plotting. Others find the humour juvenile or the central partnership unpersuasive. The harshest objections go beyond pacing and noise: The Guardian condemns the film’s homophobia, xenophobia and misogyny, while Slant Magazine attacks its jingoism and disregard for human life.

Screen Daily
14 July 2003 · John Hazelton
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its critical assessment is hidden behind the access prompt. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the available text.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
18 July 2003 · Elvis Mitchell
64*

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. No praise or complaint from the review is available to report.

Read the full review →
Total Film
2 October 2003 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The review finds the sequel overlong, overblown and underwritten, but still entertaining enough to qualify as big, dumb fun. It praises the leads’ wisecracks while faulting the repetitive action and stale plot.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Jason Caro
40

Caro finds the sequel overlong and overindulgent, despite its energetic action spectacle. He singles out Bay’s swirling camerawork and rapid editing as nearly nauseating, alongside juvenile, thin dialogue.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· DA
40*

The review presents the sequel as a brash ode to excess, with an impliedly critical view of its unrestrained style. It singles out the violence, bloodshed, car chases and destruction as unmediated.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
18 July 2003 · ★½/4 · Roger Ebert
38

Ebert’s verdict is negative, faulting the film as excessively long and over-the-top. He particularly objects to its relentless violence and noisy action spectacle.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
30*

Thomas finds the sequel overlong, repetitive and often irritating, despite moments of visual invention. He singles out Bay’s camera work and the first Miami highway chase as impressive, but says they cannot compensate for the weak material.

Read the full review →
Variety
13 July 2003 · Todd McCarthy
20*

McCarthy finds the film overlong and exhausting, arguing that its excess undermines the simple cop-buddy story. He praises some spectacular stunts and shots but says their abundance dilutes their impact.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
15 July 2003 · Ed Gonzalez
10*

Gonzalez condemns the film as vile and jingoistic, arguing that its treatment of race and the drug war is reductive. He singles out its gleeful, elaborate violence and disregard for human life as especially repellent.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
5 October 2003 · Philip French
10*

French condemns the film as overlong and morally ugly. He particularly objects to its homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny and violent climax.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
2 October 2003 · Angus Wolfe Murray
15*

The critic finds the sequel a joyless, overlong mess in which action overwhelms the story and the humor falls flat. The stunts and destruction are singled out as drowning the plot, while the Smith-Lawrence double act fails to recapture its earlier chemistry.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate