A review by GenerationofSwine

Written by GenerationofSwine on 2023-01-12

In the first one, Chicago was as much of a star as the fire. This feels cheaper and certainly was location The beautiful backdrop that made the first one so visually appealing is lost here and you have, well, you have Toronto instead and that just doesn't cut it. And, honestly, the leads Chicago accent is horrible. And the special effects are cheaper. And the plot holes are bigger and a lot more over-the-top conspiratorial. Still, the acting is decent and Donald Southerland is fantastic...again. The main issue is that the lead doesn't have the charm as Kurt Russel and Daniel Baldwin had in the original, it's missing the brilliantly delivered monologue from De Niro. In a lot of ways it absolutely sucks in comparison. However, if you take it for what it is, a straight to video sequel, it's not bad. Had it been a stand alone it would have been a lot better, it wouldn't have felt as much like the cheap cousin. But, for straight to video, it's entertaining enough.