The initial film made Chicago itself feel almost like a character, but this one doesn’t manage that at all. The visual appeal of the original is gone; instead of filming on location, they used Toronto, which simply isn't as effective. To be blunt, the lead actor’s portrayal of a Chicago accent is really not good. The special effects look noticeably less expensive, and there are more obvious plot inconsistencies that feel exaggerated and overly complex. Despite these flaws, the performances are generally acceptable, and Donald Sutherland delivers another excellent performance. The biggest problem is that the main character lacks the charisma Kurt Russell and Daniel Baldwin brought to their roles in the first film; it's also missing a memorable speech like the one delivered by De Niro. It’s undeniably inferior when measured against its predecessor. However, if you accept it as what it is—a direct-to-video sequel—it isn’t terrible. It would likely have been more successful as an independent story; then it wouldn't feel so much like a low-budget imitation. Even so, for a straight-to-video release, it provides enough entertainment.

Source on TMDB