Flatliners

Terrible. Acting was OK but bordered on comical. Not scary at all and second part was a bit loose.

Could have been darker with more urgency but flapped around quite a bit. The ending was boring as hell and didn't seem to convey anything.

Should've got to see Kingsman instead.

Hear me out: The film wasn't the best thing ever and quite predictable, but it was watchable and I have definitely seen worse. Having never watching the original, i actually didn't know it was a 'horror' so that was a surprise.

I love Ellen Page and her acting continued excellent in this movie.

If you're still on the fence about watching it, just watch it once and ignore the reviews like I did and I heavily base my watches on reviews. I quite enjoyed it even though I probably won't watch it again.. it was still worth a try.

When it comes to remaking a movie, I'm all for it if it means that they're going to try and make a better movie out of something that wasn't all that impressive to begin with. That being said, if the original film was already solid or decently received by both audiences and critics, then why bother? Flatliners was a film that was released back in 1990, and I quite enjoy that film, even though the overall product has many issues of its own. I didn't see the reason for a remake, but I could see potential in improving it, so I was open-minded. Sadly, Flatliners is one of the worst films I've seen all year. Taking a solid premise and putting a supernatural spin on it for absolutely no apparent reason, bothered me to no end. Here is why Flatliners fails as both a remake and as an original piece to be shown to a new audience.

The idea of doctors being capable of flatlining people and bringing them back to life, being able to have conversations about what death is like and going through hallucinations as a side effect is quite interesting; However, this version of the film becomes a supernatural thriller by the time it reaches its third act, making for a very confusing film, due to the fact that there is clearly no physical entity that could ever accomplish these things. This version of this concept just strips away anything that was exciting or intriguing about the original film. Not to compare and contrast, but idea of Flatliners definitely benefits from a more subdued and subtle approach to things.

What bothered me was the fact that the majority of the cast seemed capable of being subdued, but the film's screenplay was such a mess that I found myself thinking these actors/actresses deserved better material. In particular, Diego Luna and Ellen Page were actually very good in their respective roles, making for a few emotionally resonant moments, even though the lines they were given were pretty lame. Quite honestly, with a better script, a title change, and a bit of originality, this cast could've worked in a much better movie.

Even though the performances are all decent, the fact that this cast was a bunch of youngsters actually annoyed me. The original film was about a group of experienced doctors who had a neat idea, and were much more capable of being able to bring each other back to life. This time around, it's a group of students who have just enough knowledge in maybe being able to bring each other back. This notion alone was a scripting mistake, because it just becomes a story about naive young students who become obsessed with someone's experiment. I found no attachment to any of these characters and none of them really had a reason for wanting to die (with the exception of one or two without spoiling anything), which left me not caring from frame one.

In the end, this film benefits from a strong enough cast (for the most part) and the concept itself is very interesting, but all you have to do is watch the original to see how it should be done. This film tries too many new things, and quite frankly fails at pretty much all of them. Having terrible dialogue, an unnecessary supernatural turn of events, and a climax that turns into a straight up horror flick, I found myself not caring what the outcome for each of the characters would be. The only thing redeemable about this film is the premise itself, which has been done better in the past, so I can't recommend this movie to anyone, but I do recommend checking out the original Flatliners if you haven't seen it yet.

What started off as potentially a great film, suddenly turned into a complete boring mess. While going in a different direction to the 1990's version, I don't think the creators knew exactly what that direction was as it seemed to jump all over the place. While I giggled at certain ridiculous moments, the rest was spent thinking what exactly is going on? Ellen Page's performance was okay but I think the movie itself squashed what could have been a great acting role.

The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger's "A Matter of Life and Death" in 1946 and Warren Beatty's "Heaven Can Wait" in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward's mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998's "What Dreams May Come". Joel Schmacher's 1990's "Flatliners" saw a set of "brat pack" movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don't remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that's about it!)

But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn't a little bit intrigued by the question of "what's beyond"? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property's reputation.

In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page ("Inception") who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in "Rogue One" but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as "the sexy one"; James Norton ("War and Peace") as "the posh boy" and Kiersey Clemons as the "cute but repressed one", all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.

Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he's not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev ("The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo") thinking?

In terms of the story, it's pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi's original, with Ben Ripley ("Source Code") adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of "It": for horror to work well it need to obey some decent 'rules of physics' and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the "action" is sensibly based inside the character's heads) there are the occasional linkages to the 'real world' that generate a "WTF???" response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.

Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie 'meh'. It's certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn't completely bored for the two hours. But I won't remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a "Black Adder" quote, it's all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.

(For the graphical version of this review, please visit bob-the-movie- man.com. Thanks.)