User reviews

When "Backdraft" came out in 1991, massive success that it was, it wasn't particularly prime sequel material. And while it has stood up well over time, the demand has certainly not increased. Alas, here we are, 28 years later and we have been given a sequel, "Backdraft II".

This sequel was made with less money, less talent, less care, less quality, and as a result- the product is inferior in virtually every way. What else would one expect from a straight-to-DVD movie? But don't let the dismal shortcomings to the original turn you off completely. Take away the shadow of it's big brother and judge it by itself- we have a halfway decent film that is not without it's bright spots.

Taking place in the present day, we follow a now grownup Sean McCaffrey, (Kurt Russell's son from the original, played by future star Joe Anderson) who is now an arson investigator in the Chicago Fire Department (Canada subbing for Chi Town this time.) Anderson's performance is the highlight of the film, he plays Sean like a prototypical street detective. Massive chip on his shoulder, goes by his own rules, and is an ace sleuth. His character is given some subtlety and depth (mostly due to his interactions with a stray dog) but Anderson really gives it his best (dodgy accent aside) and it shows even with an uneven script- penned by Greg Widen, who also wrote the script for the original film.

The original is not an evenly written piece either, but this screenplay's weaknesses are more glaring. The plot revolves around the death of a group of kids, killed by a backdraft explosion while trick-or-treating. This shocking scene should make for a storyline that makes one eager to catch the culprit, but we're soon drawn into a somewhat complicated and rather pointless story involving defense contractors and espionage that feels out of place and more like an episode of "24".

Along the way we have a supporting cast consisting of an able partner (and underdeveloped character) Sean has forced upon him, played by Alisha Bailey, a rather forced love-interest played by Jessamine-Bliss Bell, and Sean's uncle Brian, which features the return of William Baldwin reprising his role from the original with about as much enthusiasm and vigor as a pine cone. Baldwin is no great actor and Brian was never a very interesting character to begin with, but this lifeless performance was one of the most disappointing things about this movie.

Not alone however was the dull Mr. Baldwin in his return, we are also treated to Donald Sutherland again as Ronald. Sutherland is still a consummate professional and treats this role with a little more fun and less of a sinister nature than he did in the original. He is a joy to behold in this film, hamming it up just enough for you to still take him seriously as this sort of Hannibal Lector of arson.

The real failing of this movie is it's very rushed, uneven pacing. For a runtime of 1 hour and 41 mins, it sometimes feels like they treated it as if it were 45 mins, with messy scenes featuring piles of exposition blurted out all at once, but the next we're given a slower moment of Sean in deep thought or dramatic build up towards action scenes with weak payoffs. I feel this falls on the director, Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego (known mostly for the abysmal found footage piece "Apollo 18") and harder still is it to believe that Ron Howard was an Executive Producer on this. Maybe he just got a check to put his name on it to attract fans of the original and went about his duties with the same enthusiasm as William Baldwin went about his...

I know this sounds pretty bad, but it almost feels like a backdoor pilot episode to a "Backdraft" series. It keeps your attention well enough and even has some very decent action and fire scenes that actually had me on edge a bit. I think this film gets judged too harshly by some. But, I think they did okay. Despite the uneven nature of the script, Greg Widen still achieves some good dialogue throughout and the actors who gave a damn really raise the quality of the film overall. I give 5/10. Good for killing 2 hours on Netflix. Enjoy or at least try to.

Maybe because I'm not a professional firefighter or maybe because when I watch dramas like this, I'm willing to suspend my expectations of 100% accuracy in exchange for entertainment, I enjoyed this movie. I enjoyed Donald Sutherland's portrayal of total creepiness. He nailed creepy, deranged old man. There were a few extraneous characters, like the girlfriend, but she was needed for one scene in particular (no spoilers from me!) Sean is a flawed person. It's his motivation. A few loose ends, like the connection between the Tuckers & the bad guys, but no big deal. I didn't care enough to get all wound up about it. I probably won't watch it again, but it was okay for a one-off

I enjoyed the movie didn't expect it to grab my attention cause im a vintage person i love the first backdraft it did creep me out a little to see how much william baldwin looks alot like alec these days lol....donald's character just as creepy as ever works thou and sean's past haunts him to a point but all around not terrible to watch i loved the references to the first one throughout ignore all the lame asses that cant grasp at what they filmed if you loved the first one give this on a try and ignore all the others and watch it for yourself!

This sequel as most of them do did not live up to it's prequel.

It was ok and i had no trouble in watching it once but it's a movie i have no desire to watch again whereas the original movie i could watch again right now.

If you have a couple of hours to spare then watch it to relax and pass time but don't expect to be excited and on the edge of your chair.

Make sure there are no extinguishers around your house too as you may be tempted to use them on your tv in order to stop watching this movie.

This film is interesting to me because it's the first time I watch a film about arson investigation. I think it is suspenseful. I enjoyed it.

I didn't have high expectations for this sequel but the fact that William Baldwin and Donald Sutherland played a role gave me some hope. It didn't take more than a few scenes to dash it.

The story is overly predictable and most characters are so flat that you only notice them because they fill some space. Dialogues sound a copy and paste from a sub-par police procedural show.

The acting of the main character(s) is decent and the camerawork is probably the best this movie has to offer.

There is worse but when all is said and done, this is nothing more than a low-budget, boring sequel to a decent 1990s movie!

Well it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick but just barely. First I want to acknowledge the reviewer who complained about jacking a round in the chamber, I'm with ya bro ticks me off too. I'm not a LEO but I am ex military and a combat vet and if you're carrying a weapon one thing you don't want is to be jacking around jacking a round you better be locked cocked and ready to rock. The original Backdraft was a classic this one is not, it's not painful to watch but you won't leave praising it either.

I'm very disappointed that they couldn't even film in Chicago. If you're going to add to such an iconic film at least get the location correct.

Backdraft 2 was the perfect continuation of the first film. The film juggled the struggles of a fireman's job between the love and hate of fires.

I grew up in the 90s so the original Backdraft was a staple in my childhood film viewings. When I saw they were making a direct to dvd/digital sequel I groaned and couldn't believe it. But I gave this one a chance and it's not that bad if you do exactly that. Obviously the cast in this one doesn't have the same chemistry from the original film but if you nitpick and compare every detail you are going to hate it no matter what. Donald Sutherland essentially caries this film with his role. Joe Anderson and William Baldwin are both clearly putting effort in and I give them credit. Right now this is on Netflix in the US so I say give it a shot.

Just don't! ...Seriously your time would be better spent trying out a Vasectomy take home kit.

As a huge fan of the first one, I'll ignore that this one was ever made. Boring, and unwatchable is friendly.

Chicago Fire Department arson investigator Sean McCaffrey (Joe Anderson) is the son of the late Lieutenant Stephen "Bull" McCaffrey (Kurt Russell in the first movie). His uncle Brian McCaffrey (William Baldwin) is the Deputy District Chief of the Office of Fire Investigation. Lone wolf Sean is assigned new partner Maggie Rening (Alisha Bailey). Ronald Bartel (Donald Sutherland) is an old arsonist in prison.

The fire special effects are a big part of the first movie. In this one, they are using bad CGI with the fire scenes. Some scenes are bad. One is good. Obviously, this is a cheaper production and they can't afford top of the line special effects. As for the actors, Joe Anderson seems to be a fine second tier actor. I don't know why Billy Baldwin isn't the lead. He could be the grizzled old veteran which suits the premise of getting stuck with a newbie. Donald Sutherland has limited screen time. The investigation is just too slow. They do need a mystery figure for Sean to chase. I'm not really following the fire stuff. This is not good.

I didn't think it was as bad as so many other reviews seem to think. It had its share of cliches; job/authority rebels, last chance to save career types, over-inflated bureaucrats, and sweep it under the rug bosses. The fire scenes weren't too bad and some of the techno-babble was OK. The dog was cool. Not the worst I've seen by a long shot. Worth a view.

Backdraft was one of the coolest films I remember from my childhood, and ANYTHING with Kurt Russell is 10/10...

Now we have part 2, Kurt is gone, and Baldwin is...well...he's older? Much less cool, heavier, and more boring. Part one was almost a "Top Gun" for Firefighters, and this one..? It's just...ugh ..

I'll put it simply. If there was no part one? This would've NEVER been made.

I actually enjoyed this movie. Not awesome but it's quite decent and it's deserved better rating.

Worth watching.

I basically lost 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. I was a teenager when the original Backdraft was made. It was a great movie. This movie was far-fetched and so ridiculous. The only part of this movie that I felt was consistent with the original was Donald Southerland and William Baldwin. Filming the movie in any location besides Chicago was an injustice to the original film. Without spelling out each individual inconsistency, I will just say that it is full of inaccuracies with firefighting and typical movie making exaggerations.

Sadly, many of the armchair "critics" who toss their opinions around about solid movies, and especially late-remakes are insidiously inept and often fairly illiterate. (and do forgive me if I add or omit some commas where they do, and don't belong). Often, they never watch the whole movie, but comment anyway. Usually negatively. IMDB should RAISE the standard of critiquing a movie by demanding at least 1,000 characters. They should also have a full time staff delete the damn fools who love to say "Worst movie ever". Idiots like this just waste valuable bandwidth and other people's time. Smarter people. The kind of people I hope I still am. Anyway, what also happens is that people tend to condemn movies like this that are very damn straightforward and in-your-face disturbing. Donald Southerland's performance was extremely disturbing and powerful. Been watching him for almost 50 years and I even wanted to dislike it because it was so intense at times. I don't look for reviews I might agree with, or those that might save me 90 minutes of my life. I look for balance in honest discernment based on the ability to think deeper than just a gut-reaction. As someone who specialized in a certain art-form years ago, I would always tell my students NEVER to judge their own work. Let it live and age. It will change every week, month, and especially over years. 'Judgement' is final in the mind and never allows the growth of a re-perception. 'Discernment' however, allows for a possible expansive evolution of thought, reevaluation of meaning, and especially 'inspiration' where many creative minds that have already closed might expect to find it least.

Interesting attempt at a follow up story line to the original fire family. Decent casting except for the female firefighter. Donald Sutherland is still creepily good. The soundtrack is excellent,.The excessive f-bombs ruined the main character for me.

So why stoop to making a sequel 28 years after the first movie was out? It makes absolutely no sense, especially when taking into consideration that the 1991 "Backdraft" wasn't really all that and a bag of potato chips. And it didn't really help that this 2019 sequel felt pointless and just grasping at straws at what was once semi-popular.

The storyline in "Backdraft 2" was adequate, if you are not already familiar with the 1991 "Backdraft" movie. But if you aren't familiar with that movie, then I suppose the 2019 "Backdraft 2" movie is entertaining and good.

To me, as I am familiar with the original movie, then this was just a very weak soup boiled on watered down and soup that has been left out for 28 years. No, it wasn't a recipe for success or for anything even remotely interesting.

I did manage to sit through the movie, certainly. But was I entertained? No, not really. The storyline was shallow, and the characters equally so. The actors didn't really have anything to work with, except for Donald Sutherland, but his performance was brutally cut short with not enough screen time.

And the cast in this 2019 sequel was so lame in comparison to the pretty impressive ensemble of cast they had for the 1991 movie. And yeah, that was also a blow to the movie.

In comparison to the 1991 "Backdraft" movie, then this was like a bucket of ice cold water to the face. Water that might have been put to better use given to thirsty people somewhere. The 1991 movie made the fire a central part of the story, and actually gave it life and character - so to speak - whereas it had no such thing or no such role in the 2019 sequel. It was just there because it was also there in the 1991 movie.

As I mentioned earlier, if you haven't seen the 1991 "Backdraft" movie, then you might find some enjoyment in the 2019 sequel from director Gonzalo López-Gallego and writerGregory Widen. But if you are familiar with the 1991 movie, do yourself a favor, and don't bother with this one.