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.
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.