Backdraft 2 (Video 2019) Poster

(2019 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
95 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Don't burn this film JUST yet...
jon_carlson-2895320 May 2019
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.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ignore all the negative reviews...it's decent enough
kimbpaul18 May 2019
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
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
not bad
spnatural-8589319 May 2019
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!
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Fire is firmly Extinguished
leopard-595725 January 2020
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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's good enough
Gordon-115 September 2020
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It bores you to a crisp!
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!
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disgraceful
emarville15 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Bad does not even begin to cover this movie! A child arsonist is fire investigator, wore his dad's turnout coat that was not NFPA approved, was able to shoot from the hip, a line that had enough pressure to drop a guy, but he had no problem holding, conducting experiments in a home lab, obtained "proof" that would not hold up in court, more plot holes than swiss cheese! Do yourself a favor and make sure never to watch this movie.
30 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Great But I've Seen Worse
larrys315 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Haven't seen the original 1991 film, but from what I've read this one does not compare well with it. Some of the actors, such as Donald Sutherland and William Baldwin, do return here.

Joe Anderson stars as Sean McCaffrey, the hard-boiled, loner, and dedicated arson investigator, whose father (Kurt Russell) was the lead actor in the 1991 movie. He will be reluctantly partnered with the young Maggie Rening (Alisha Bailey).

Together, they will investigate a blast at a townhouse on Halloween night that killed 5 youngsters. Although the politicians want the case to be closed as an accident, Sean and Maggie will quickly realize that the explosion was meant to happen. Their investigation will lead them to a possible case of nefarious international arms sales.

Look for scientific jargon that will make your head spin, some plot elements that are ridiculous but some good action scenes as well. And some brief but gruesome scenes of charred human bodies. Also, look for a terrific performance by Sutherland, who has a rather small but important role as a deranged and jailed arsonist.

All in all, this is not a great film but, in my opinion, it's watchable and I certainly have seen worse movies.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst movie of 2019....(so far)
mannythepirate16 May 2019
Just don't! ...Seriously your time would be better spent trying out a Vasectomy take home kit.
26 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent for Direct to Video
waynewass4272 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Don't expect too much for a direct-to-video (or cable) movie.

It is automatically going to have a minimal budget...so you can't expect to get A-list (or current B-list) actors.

The main character (Sean McCaffrey) is a member of the Chicago Fire Department's OFI (Office of Fire Investigation)...in other words an arson investigator. He is the son of Stephen McCaffey (Kurt Russel) who died at the end of the first Backdraft. His father's death torments him, and he blames his uncle (Brain), the head of the Chicago F.D.'s OFI, for his father's death. Sean doesn't know the real cause of his death, until circumstances force Brain to tell him the real story.

Anyway, Sean and his new partner investigate a fire / backdraft that accidentally kills 5 boys on Halloween.

The investigation leads to an arms-for pay deal gone wrong, involving a real-life air-to-air missile (the AIM-120 AMRAAM).

Perhaps the best part of this movie is Donald Sutherland, reprising his first Backdraft role of incarcerated Ronald Bartel, Chicago's most infamous and expert arsonist.

If you set your expectations too high, and are looking for a near-copycat of the original film, don't bother watching this. If you are like myself, and go in to it with an open mind, you may actually enjoy this at least somewhat.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Better than a Poke in the eye
lenord-9762815 May 2019
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.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much better then rated!!!!
adam_thman28 June 2019
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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quite a nice surprise for a 4.5 movie!
yc95517 November 2020
Thought it's one of those B-movie sequels type of deal, 4.5 on IMDB. Turns out this is quite a serious sequel to the original with some heavy weights in the cast. Loved the cinematography work, the tension, the acting and all that. Only thing is that I thought the lead character talked too much. Is fire investigator talkative like that for real? Even when the fire is burning and his life is in grave danger? Kinda gets annoying after a while. And the missile/foreign country plot sounds a bit stretchy and forced, as if fire and arson aren't enough, have to throw in some gun fights to spice things up. But hey, ain't it the norm these days? Other than that, I really enjoyed the movie!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Canada????
tdavis-5705913 July 2019
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.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Epic garbage
martin-w-steve3 September 2019
As a huge fan of the first one, I'll ignore that this one was ever made. Boring, and unwatchable is friendly.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
not good sequel
SnoopyStyle22 October 2023
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I will never watch this again!
glasscase-2591917 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up watching the first film for YEARS and I was actually eager to see this since I enjoy almost every film about firefighting, especially the original "Backdraft". I'm lucky that I saw this film for free in order to not get disappointed wasting my good money on this. When I first saw the trailer on YouTube, I had a feeling of excitement and doubt. I was excited that there was going to be a follow-up to my favorite R-rated film of 1991. My feeling of doubt was that I had a bad feeling that the story would be awful. The original film is special to me not just because it's a firefighter film with a spectacular cast and awesome special effects, it's due to the fact that it came out the year I was born. William Baldwin isn't to blame for this film, it's not the fault of Donald Sutherland and not even Joe Anderson. It's the writing that made this film so awful.

The positives: The performances by most of the cast were decent (especially William Baldwin playing Brian McCaffrey again), the fire trucks were nice, the action was pretty good, some of the effects were nice (especially since real fire was used), some of the new characters were likable, particularly Sean and Maggie, the technical adviser who worked on the original film worked on this film as well, Engine 17 and Truck 46 make a grand return (I didn't mind the new versions of them) and Brian is now a fully experienced firefighter.

The NEGATIVES: The story is extremely weak, unnecessary, confusing and is too slow paced, too many new characters that are difficult to remember (but not Maggie, she was an awesome female character), the whole idea with nuclear missles was nonsensical, the new villains have nonsensical motivations, it was 28 years too late for a follow-up to the first film, too many plot holes, pointless mentioning of the "career dissipation light" comment that was used in the original film, the way the film was shot was poor, pointless revelation that Ronald (Donald Sutherland's character) is a diabetic, and arguably the worst part of this film is that Brian gets killed (luckily it was off-screen) at the end which really irritated me since he was one of the characters that I cared for the most.

My recommendations: if you want to see better post - "Backdraft" films watch "Frequency", "Ladder 49" or "World Trade Center" and in terms of pre-"Backdraft" films, watch "Firehouse" with Richard Roundtree or "The Towering Inferno". If you want to watch something that has nods to "Backdraft", watch "Chicago Fire", especially since the technical adviser who worked on both "Backdraft" films works on the show and several supporting cast members from the original film appear as different characters on the show.

Last of all, I'm keeping my promise to avoid watching this piece of smoldering junk for free again. I won't purchase it on DVD or Blu-Ray and I also deem this as my number one worst film of 2019 or my worst film of 2019 (as of right now). Also, please do yourself a favor and don't watch this, not even for free! 'Nuff said!
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's watchable.
DeadMansTrousers29 May 2019
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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Meh..
mvike8 February 2020
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.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not great, but not that bad
jim_of_oz19 May 2019
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.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very disappointing
msfdl45 February 2020
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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Movie If You Have an IQ above a Hundred...
transientdreams18 May 2019
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.
34 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's fine.
KateYY30 May 2020
I actually enjoyed this movie. Not awesome but it's quite decent and it's deserved better rating.

Worth watching.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What's with all the bombs?*!*?
treedennis30 June 2019
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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
But why?...
paul_haakonsen3 June 2019
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.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed