Spikeopath Strictly on a personal level, I always felt that the original Flatliners was average at best. A missed opportunity to use the premise for frightening results, to unnerve, unhinge, whilst intelligently examining the life after death question. So when news of this 2017 remake broke I wasn't in the least bit surprised, the idea at the narrative core was ripe for further filmic delvings.Niels Arden Oplev's 2017 version is itself problematic, and a long way from being all the things I so wanted from the original film, but at least it has its own twists, a supernatural slant for scares. The makers are also to be applauded for making a truly bold decision in the story, rendering complaints about this not offering anything new as being redundant. Chances are that if you are a fan of the original film you will hate this, if like me you have no affinity to it then this is an ok time waster. While for those not familiar with the 1990 pic can go in for some mild shock and afterlife dalliances. 6/10

garywbrown38 Remake of the original "Flatliners" film - Very good with cameo by Sutherland - Worth Watching

loki-129 Perhaps I can only say this because I haven't yet watched the original, but this was a perfectly enjoyable, well put together and well acted movie in and of itself I'm going to watch the original, and maybe once I do I'll see that it's totally unchanged and needless and the original covers the concept much better, which would be excellent, but that doesn't stop this version being alright too

eric262003 So here we have a reboot of movie that was never needed let alone a movie that came out in 1990 that even people back then hardly ever remembered. If only I was sitting next to Muppet characters Statler and Waldorf and we would have a ball hurling heckles at this abortion of film that is "Flatiners" just to tell Hollywood, we don't need anymore pointless reboots and to come up with original ideas instead.There's no point in rebooting a film that already bad before, so why now?Prior to watching this remake of "Flatliners" I saw the original 1990 Joel Schumacher movie to see how poorly executed this movie was by starring five medical students who experimentally kill each other to see what dimensions are in the hereafter. Cut to 2017, and all we get is the same exact rehashing without any new twists or angles or anything new to unravel during the supposed 27 years of scientific research into the unknown. The end result is lacks in anything engaging to say while the characters have little to be emphatic about. The script was penned by Ben Ripley with some credit given to Peter Filardi the original screenwriter decided to up the technological ante by adding an MRI machine for these students to experiment with while they like their audience go brain dead for five minutes. All for naught this MRI apparatus was there to inject modern machinery into the story to make us forget this is a reboot. This sets some alarming questions to boot. If these students are given access to the fully equipped abandoned section of hospital in the basement to conduct their bizarre experiments, are they not being under surveillance?The new group of medical students are an improvement from their predecessors of 1990 film being that there's three females and two males taking part in this research study instead of four guys and the token girl. The ethnic diversity is well established too as we have mixed bag of cultures instead of an all Caucasian roster we had in 1990. But the ages within these characters are truly put in question. I'll say that Marlo (Nina Dobrev) and Sophia (Kiersey Clemons) are just around the rightful age to play medical students. Courtney (Ellen Page) the mastermind behind this wack initiative is thirty, but still can pass off younger than her actual age. However, Jamie (James Norton) is quite long in the face for a thirty-two year old. And the maturity level of Diego Luna's Ray was passed due to his nine years as a firefighter in Houston has no significance to his line of work or experience. Sure there are late-bloomers in every field of work, but this experiment these students are conducting is geared towards a more youthful curiousness as opposed to more older people who should know better which is where the 1990 film worked because the cast (Julia Roberts, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Billy Baldwin and Oliver Platt) and they looked the part as younger than the roster we have here.To keep up with new technological advances to the this practice, the MRI has little in terms of the plot and wears out its welcome rather quickly. So Courtney now discover she has the gift of baking bread from her grandmother's recipe book and could play piano without years of practice. Sophia can solve a Rubik's Cube in no time. But then things from their past comes back to haunt them as people they hurt return for revenge and now they must go out and repair the damage they've done. The 1990 original movie didn't make it seem haunting, but here in this reboot, they did the scares a little too over-the-top as an excuse to generate a reaction from the audience. Director Niels Arden Oplev seems to get under the skin of the five student doctors that their lives like so many others have been laden with guilt and that their quest for redemption has more if not grim meanings behind it.Even though this reboot takes a more haunting twist to the original, like its predecessor, it still fails to decide what genre it wants to be. Is there a supernatural entity lurking in all their near-death experiences or have they seen a new lease on life to make them softer? It's like it wants to be one genre but tries to be a bit of each (drama, thriller, horror with some bits of comedy). Hell, it even makes itself seem intelligent when it's anything but. They try to be cheeky by casting Kiefer Sutherland in the cast because he was in the original 1990 film as he plays the student teacher's doctor. But it turns out he's playing Dr. Barry Wolfson and not Dr. Nelson Wright from the 1990 movie. It would've been cool if the students found some nots from Dr. Wright's desk that were meant to be destroyed and taken advantage to it. or they were placed there to further quench his curious ways into seeking answers to other people's journey to afterlife for further research. There are many ways they could go with Sutherland's existence instead of just playing for laughs.There was just no reasons, purpose or motives as to why this film was green-lit in the first place. When Marlo said "We're beyond explanations as to why we're having these macabre manifestations brewing in their minds". Sorry I can't agree with you on that one. Hollywood needs to invest in new stories dying to be made and stop with the reboots. It's becoming too much.