A man sits hunched in a chair in a smoke-filled room, facing a doorway
Film review

Backdraft

1991 · Directed by Ron Howard · 2h 17m · MPA R

In a sentenceThe fires are terrifying; the conversations allow plenty of time to recover

A closed door can hide a fire starved of oxygen. Opening it can unleash an explosion, creating another danger for the firefighters attempting to tackle the blaze. Stephen McCaffrey (Kurt Russell), Brian McCaffrey (William Baldwin) and Donald Rimgale (Robert De Niro) are at the centre of a story of firefighting, crime and personal conflict. The work demands co-operation under pressure, while disagreements complicate the business of confronting an unpredictable fire. Beyond the immediate threat of the flames, there is also the possibility that a fire conceals a secret.

Fi1m review

Ron Howard makes the fires frightening enough to justify some patience with Backdraft. The thin characters and overworked melodrama demand rather more of it than a 137-minute action thriller should.

Ron Howard’s Backdraft is a decent choice for anyone interested in firefighting, provided a long stretch of conventional drama sounds an acceptable price. It wants to honour the people who go towards a fire and make their personal troubles matter just as much as their work. That is a reasonable ambition for an action thriller, and the respect comes through. Gregory Widen’s screenplay struggles to find enough convincing things for these people to say between emergencies.

Mikael Salomon’s cinematography is the strongest reason to persist. The fires have an unpredictable movement that makes it difficult to settle comfortably into watching the action, even when the surrounding drama has made its intentions obvious. We were frightened by the factory fire, because the spread of the flames makes the effort to control them look horribly precarious. The spectacle works because we believe that the people confronting it might be overwhelmed, however capable they appear or however firmly the film encourages us to admire them.

Albert Brenner’s production design gives those fires a convincing physical setting. The factory registers as a workplace becoming dangerous, and that helps the action hold our attention beyond the immediate excitement of an explosion. There is something absorbing about watching people attempt a difficult job under conditions that can change without warning. The film is patient enough to let us appreciate the work, though it becomes less persuasive when it turns from that work to the firefighters’ personal troubles.

Kurt Russell gives Stephen McCaffrey the force the material needs, though force cannot do all the work of characterisation. William Baldwin’s Brian McCaffrey is less compelling, and the screenplay does too little to make us care about him when there is no immediate danger. The presence of Robert De Niro as Donald Rimgale raises expectations that the writing does not consistently meet. There are good actors here, but too often the film expects their presence to make ordinary dramatic exchanges feel consequential without giving them much help.

Hans Zimmer’s music adds to the pressure to take the personal drama seriously, and we could have done with less encouragement. The score suits the scale of the danger better than the thinner passages of character writing. Mike Hill and Daniel P. Hanley keep the firefighting sequences urgent, but their editing cannot make the film’s competing interests fit comfortably together. The trouble accumulates as the film goes on: another stretch of melodrama arrives, and we find ourselves waiting for the firefighters to get back to work.

A thriller can survive simple characters if it moves briskly enough. At 137 minutes, this one gives us too much time to notice how little there is to know about its people. Still, its respect for firefighters is welcome, and the fire sequences are frightening enough to explain the attraction. We would pass if a tightly plotted crime story is the priority. Choose it for the firefighting, with patience for the long conversations between emergencies.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

57
Positive
1
Mixed
4
Negative
2

The reviews lean towards a mixed verdict on Backdraft, with praise clustering around the fire effects rather than the people caught among them. Across the available commentary, the firefighting scenes are repeatedly described as thrilling, convincing and unpredictable. Even the less favourable reviews find substantial visual excitement here. The central reservation is that the surrounding drama struggles to match those sequences, relying on familiar plotting and heavy melodrama.

The spread is appreciable: some critics find the spectacle enough to sustain an entertaining film, while others find the storytelling too weak to overlook. Radio Times offers the clearest endorsement, crediting Howard with managing the sprawling story despite its lack of originality. At the less favourable end, the Los Angeles Times finds the characters thin and the cast underused. The disagreement centres on how much dramatic weakness the fire scenes can compensate for.

Radio Times
★★★★ · John Ferguson
80

Ferguson considers the film a sturdy, accomplished mainstream hit despite its unoriginal plot. He praises Howard’s skillful handling of the sprawling story and the exhilarating fire footage.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
24 May 1991 · Janet Maslin
64*

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. No praise or complaint can be verified from the page text provided.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
24 May 1991 · ★★½/4 · Roger Ebert
62

Ebert finds the film an uneven but entertaining tribute to firefighters. He praises its fiery spectacle, while faulting the melodrama for competing with the firefighting story.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· CM
61*

The accessible page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is not visible. The standfirst criticizes the screenplay’s football-team analogy for firefighting.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2011 · Angie Errigo
55*

Errigo finds the drama hokey but says the film remains entertaining. She singles out the spectacular fire effects as its main attraction.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
24 May 1991 · Kenneth Turan
40*

Turan finds the film visually thrilling but dramatically conventional and emotionally unconvincing. He especially praises the spectacular, unpredictable fire effects, while criticizing the thin characterization and underused cast.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Backdraft worth watching?
Backdraft is worth considering for its frightening firefighting sequences, but its thin characters and overworked melodrama keep our score at 62. We recommend it chiefly to anyone interested in the work of firefighters who can tolerate long conversations between emergencies; at 137 minutes, it is not a brisk crime thriller.
How long is Backdraft, and what is it rated?
Backdraft runs 2h 17m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a drama and thriller film.
Where can I watch Backdraft in the US?
Backdraft is streaming on Amazon Prime Video in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. It leaves Amazon Prime Video on 1 October. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Backdraft, and is it suitable for children?
Backdraft has a UK 15 certificate and frightening fire sequences, making it unsuitable for children under 15. We find the factory fire particularly unsettling because the spreading flames make the firefighters’ efforts look precarious; teenagers old enough for the certificate still need a tolerance for sustained danger.
How does Backdraft compare to The Towering Inferno?
Backdraft offers firefighting, crime and personal conflict, while The Towering Inferno stages a larger emergency with a sprawling cast. We favour The Towering Inferno for large-scale disaster spectacle, though its 165-minute running time requires more patience. Both make the flames more compelling than the people, but Backdraft particularly suits an interest in firefighters at work.
What should I watch after Backdraft?
After Backdraft, try The Towering Inferno (1974, Fi1m 68): More firefighting spectacle, with a sprawling cast and an even larger emergency. Then The Wages of Fear (1953, Fi1m 90): Dangerous work becomes almost unbearable suspense, with less room for comforting speeches.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1992

Nominated
Best Sound
Nominated
Best Sound Editing
Nominated
Best Visual Effects

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Towering Inferno (1974, Fi1m 68)More firefighting spectacle, with a sprawling cast and an even larger emergency.

  2. The Wages of Fear (1953, Fi1m 90)Dangerous work becomes almost unbearable suspense, with less room for comforting speeches.

  3. Only the Brave (2017) · not reviewed yetA closer interest in the people doing the dangerous work between emergencies.

  4. The Firemen's Ball (1967) · not reviewed yetFor a shorter, much less reverent evening in the company of firefighters.

  5. The Bravest (2019) · not reviewed yetAnother earnest firefighting spectacle, equally comfortable with vast flames and forceful sentiment.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever