---
title: "Backdraft: the reviews"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/backdraft/reviews"
title_page: "https://film.one/film/backdraft"
critics_score: 57
critics_reviews: 7
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Backdraft (1991): what the critics said

Critics' score 57 from 7 reviews: 1 positive, 4 mixed, 2 negative.

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

Rating 4/5. 

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 review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-fwsqau/backdraft/)

## The New York Times — Janet Maslin

Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 1991. 

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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/24/movies/review-film-backdraft-firefighting-spectacular.html)

## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert

Rating 2.5/4. 24 May 1991. 

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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/backdraft-1991)

## Time Out — CM

Fi1m's normalised score 61/100 (inferred from the text). 

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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/backdraft)

## Empire — Angie Errigo

Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2011. 

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

[Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/backdraft-review/)

## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan

Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 1991. 

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 review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-24-ca-2302-story.html)

## Variety — Variety Staff

Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1990. 

The review finds the film visually exhilarating but shapeless and weighed down by corny melodrama. It praises the fire scenes for their terrifying believability and sci-fi grandeur.

[Read the review](https://variety.com/1990/film/reviews/backdraft-1200429003/)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/backdraft.md