MovieChat Forums > Flatliners (1990) Discussion > 6.5? Unbelievable!

6.5? Unbelievable!

posted 9 years ago by dallasbagley
25 replies | jump to latest

Watched it again for the first time in years today. What a fantastic movie, although certainly not perfect. But it made me realize what the young actors of yesteryear were capable of. This was exceptionally casted, Schumacher's original touch was all over it, and the atmosphere/locations was amazing. As well, some of the more emotional moments were truly earned. When Roberts' character forgave her father, honestly, I cried.

Wonderful movie, that stood the test of time pretty well.

8/10

[–] arkast 9 years ago

There are a lot of reasons why the rating is 6.5. The film might seem quite unique compared to today films but during the period when it was made these kind of movies were common. Jacob's Ladder and Angel's Heart first come to mind.
Also direction wise, it isn't that special either. The overuse of colour filtering was terribly abused in the early 90's late 80's.
Yellow filter during the day, blue during the night and red in surreal situations.
Last but not least the concept that the after-life consisting of moments of your regrets and your happy moments is also a common christian belief that is known to a lot of people.
I guess that's why a lot of people including myself found the film not that amazing or special.
One thing to note though the red-hooded kid chasing Kiefer was a nice touch as a similar film starring his father, ''Don't look now'' had a red hooded 'individual' being 'chased' and haunting Donald. I try not to spoil it with all the '' .

[–] doubl3 9 years ago

It's not that good. The IDEA behind it is good, though, so I bet the remake will be great. This one just seemed poorly executed, but I liked it enough to give it a 6.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

so I bet the remake will be great.

That aged well 🤣

Seriously, when is a modern remake ever not dogshit, let alone better than the original?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I found the remake of True Grit to be very well done. I won't put it above the 1969 offering but I won't put it beneath it either.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

A very rare exception.

Also, True Grit was an old film. My rule is that you can only do a remake at least 45 years after the original OR if the original was shit-to-mediocre.

Flatliners is a modern classic and there was no need to remake it, and certainly not with such a crap effort. All they’ve achieved is soiling the good name of ‘Flatliners’.

[–] moviechatterer (16052) 5 months ago

"Heat" is a better-than-original
but yes , most arnt .

[–] Melton (5042) 4 months ago

Heat isn’t a remake. The ‘original’ was a TV-movie of a different name by the same director.

A far cry from modern remakes which cynically steal the great name of a successful original and then offer up lazy slop by a hack director.

[–] moviechatterer (16052) 4 months ago

I think what you've illustrated there is that its not a shit remake.

That in no way stops it from being a remake , regardless of name or director.
Its the same movie almost word for word - how can it possibly not be a "Remake" ?

[–] Melton (5042) 4 months ago

For the reasons I’ve explained. In addition, LA Takedown was a TV pilot last minute retooled into a TV movie when it didn’t get picked up.

Mann’s goal was not to sell an updated version of his earlier, failed project to audiences. He took the original idea which was the basis of that film and fashioned a much better final product from it. The two films had a ‘common ancestor’ but Heat is not a remake of LA Takedown.

A far cry from modern remakes which cynically steal the great name of a successful original and then offer up lazy slop by a hack director.

[–] ocsj2000 9 years ago

I totally agree, loved this movie. Just goes to show you some people are just too hard to please.

[–] mywhychromosome 8 years ago

I love this movie, but you have to take it for what it is. I can see how some people, like one of the posters, loved the (admittedly brilliant) story concept, but were disappointed by the early '90s execution, and so are excited for the remake. My issue with that is that a huge part of the reason I ended up unexpectedly loving this movie is the CAST, and the cast at that point in their careers. Kiefer is always boss, I've never been a huge Julia Roberts fan, either her acting or her looks, but I love her in this and she looks amazing with that big curly hair. Ditto for Bacon. Baldwin actually shows some chops here (in a limited role), and Oliver Platt has always been sorely underrated. All of them together?? *beep* A. Priceless. It won't be beat with this new one.

[–] yusef-ghanima 8 years ago

rubbish, it doesn't deserve a penny over 4 stars.

[–] ReturnOfWhiskey 8 years ago

Maybe because the "nightmares/hallucinations" were just...dumb. As someone mentioned above, it's a great idea but just poorly executed. I did like the cast, cinematography, and score by James Newton Howard, though.

Hopefully the sequel gets it right.



[–] yusef-ghanima 8 years ago

the sequel always gets it right.

[–] mywhychromosome 8 years ago

I honestly wish they were just doing a straight-up remake. A lot of times you wish for a continuation or a prequel instead of, "they're going to ruin the original by remaking it!", but in this case, I think that's the only thing that's appropriate. One of the major points in the story is that no one has attempted to experience death in this way before, on PURPOSE, and so they are dangerous 'pioneers' of a sort, just like the space exploration and psychological exploration via drugs that came before them. To have Keifer Sutherland hanging out as a doctor saying "this isn't a good idea"...seems to bound the story to cheesiness. The characters need to have the same naivete the cast had in the OG

[–] Jones70 (6654) 4 years ago

I’d have to watch it again.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

An 8/10 would be fair.

Great film, though a little long and perhaps not something that you'd rewatch over-and-over again.

[–] Melton (5042) 4 months ago

Long? It’s under 2 hours, and I rewatch it all the time. The new 4K disc is incredible, a feast for the eyes. Schumacher was a master of atmosphere.

[–] overseas7 (4926) 2 years ago

I have not watched this movie for years but I remember that I it was a good one (at least that was my perception back at that time).

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

It’s still great, and the new 4K UHD from Arrow looks mind-blowing, possibly the best restoration of a film (and an incredible looking film at that) I’ve ever seen.

[–] overseas7 (4926) 6 months ago

Maybe is on Netflix or Disney +. I will try to watch it again.

[–] StinkyPoopyPants (3156) 6 months ago

It's currently streaming on Pluto 😊

[–] overseas7 (4926) 6 months ago

I do not have it, but thank you for your answer!

[–] StinkyPoopyPants (3156) 6 months ago

You're welcome 😊