Adam Sandler has been a household name for decades, but not all his films are remembered fondly. While Happy Gilmore became a comedic staple in 1996, Bulletproof—an R-rated action-comedy starring Sandler alongside Damon Wayans—faded into obscurity. At the time, critics panned it, audiences were lukewarm, and it never quite found its place in Sandler's legacy. But was Bulletproof really that bad, or was it simply misunderstood?
A Buddy Cop Formula with a Twist
Directed by Ernest R. Dickerson, Bulletproof aimed to be a fresh take on the 48 HRS. formula. Sandler plays Archie Moses, a car thief with ties to a drug lord, while Wayans plays Rock Keats, an undercover cop trying to take down the operation. When Keats' cover is blown, their once-close friendship turns hostile, leading to a cross-country journey full of shootouts, betrayals, and reluctant teamwork.
The problem? Bulletproof never quite figured out what it wanted to be. Sandler's signature goofball humor clashed with the film's gritty, violent action sequences. Unlike the smooth genre-blending of Lethal Weapon or Bad Boys, Bulletproof struggled to balance comedy and drama, leaving both feeling undercooked.
Sandler and Wayans: A Mismatched Duo?
On paper, Sandler and Wayans should have been a dynamite comedic duo. Sandler was fresh off Billy Madison and SNL, while Wayans had already proven his comedic chops in In Living Color and The Last Boy Scout. But Bulletproof forced Wayans into the “straight man” role, stripping him of the over-the-top charisma that made him a star. Meanwhile, Sandler's character was cranked up to 11—his angry, loud-mouthed persona felt out of place in a story that occasionally tried to take itself seriously.
That's not to say the film is devoid of charm. When their chemistry clicks, it works—especially in moments of bickering banter. But compared to later buddy-action comedies like Rush Hour or The Other Guys, Bulletproof feels like an experiment that never fully gels.
What Went Wrong?
Critics were not kind to Bulletproof. It holds a dismal score on Rotten Tomatoes, with many calling it an uninspired rip-off of better films. Audiences weren't much kinder—while it grossed $22 million against a $25 million budget, it quickly faded from pop culture memory.
A major issue was the film's tonal inconsistency. Scenes of slapstick humor sat uneasily alongside brutal shootouts, leaving viewers unsure whether they were watching a comedy or a full-blown action flick. Ernest R. Dickerson, better known for stylish thrillers like Juice and Demon Knight, seemed caught between making a straight-laced crime film and catering to Sandler's audience.
Looking Back: A Misfire or a Hidden Gem?
So, does Bulletproof deserve its bad reputation? Not entirely. While flawed, the film showcases an early attempt by Sandler to step outside his comfort zone—something he later perfected in films like Reign Over Me and Uncut Gems. And while the humor may not always land, there are glimmers of a sharper, more self-aware action-comedy buried beneath the uneven execution.
Had Bulletproof leaned harder into either full-blown action or unapologetic comedy, it might have found a stronger audience. Instead, it remains a curious footnote in Sandler's career—a film that, while deeply flawed, hints at the versatility he would later bring to Hollywood.
Watching Bulletproof today, it's clear that its biggest crime was being ahead of its time. While audiences in 1996 weren't sure what to make of it, today's viewers—more accustomed to genre mashups—might find its messy charm endearing.
Is it Sandler's best? Not by a long shot. But for fans of ‘90s action comedies, it's an intriguing watch that offers an early glimpse at one of comedy's biggest stars attempting something different.
Do you think Bulletproof deserves a second chance, or was the criticism justified? Let us know in the comments!
