 He's gonna kill all of us, too. Yeah. Now that's you. I wrote it myself. Are you scared yet? Your lip is a quiver, so I'll take that as a yes. I'm also gonna take this scare up a notch. Callie. Not Kaley or Kelly. Callie. I hate it. I hate it. Can you hit the lights, please? Peek-a-boo. There's very little originality left in Hollywood. So here we are once again with the 1990 original Flatliners vs. this 2017 remake To a few of you, pun intended, but much like it. Last night was the first time I watched the 1990 classic. Unlike it, however, I enjoyed Flatliners a fair amount and much of that is thanks to the great cast. Kiefer Sutherland as Nelson is the main protagonist slash antagonist and my favorite of the picture. His drive to be the next great mind in science has no limits and ends up getting him and his colleagues into danger. K-Bake is terrific here, too, as David. I call Kevin Bacon K-Bake for no reason. He plays an atheist who doesn't agree with Nelson's views. William Baldwin brings his playboy charm while Julia Roberts gives a solid downplayed performance as Dr. Rachel Manus. Oliver Platt completes this five-some as Randy. He's annoying. So how does the 2017 remake compete with this ensemble? Well, by casting Ellen Page, of course, along with a TV show actress and a string of others I've never heard of. They also bring back Kiefer as head doctor for no reason other than nostalgia. Look! Remember him? He's not the same, but look! Fuckin' look! Page takes lead and as always, she's comfortable in the role, but there's nothing remotely riveting for her to do. Nina Dobrev gets in a swimsuit for a few shots. That helps a little, at least. That's something. Her character Marlowe has also worked her ass off to get where she is as a doctor. I know this because she tells her friends like 30 times in the picture. James Norton is the trust fund playboy this time around, but he's no Baldwin. The pilot from Rogue One is in this too, and Kiersey Clemens is just as annoying as Oliver Platt, possibly even more so because she has more screen time. It's an all-around bland cast compared to the original stars, which fits in nicely with the all-around bland theme they have going on here. Joel Schumacher has made some great movies in the past. St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys, my personal favorite Falling Down, but sadly he's gonna be remembered for ruining the Batman franchise for a few years. While I didn't think Flatliners was great by any means, I did enjoy it, and it was refreshing to see an original movie again. I just hope the next generations of movie viewers know this movie even exists, and it doesn't get lost in the wake of the other bullshit. There's no reason to revive her. We're gonna be phasing all of you out in less than 30 years. Just let her go to sleep. It's fine. No! Sorry, my hands are tied. We have to. We just do. But you're not gonna go alone. No, no, no, no, no, no. Robocop, Point Break, Psycho, Shot for Fucking Shot. Some of them will just play off like their sequels such as Vacation and Jumanji, but they'll know. The audience will figure it out on their own. We'll do prequels. We'll do sequels 20 years later. We'll do spin-offs, origin stories for characters you didn't even think mattered at all! Please, don't. I'm sorry, pretty woman, but it's time to cut you loose. But loose. Raider Peter Fullarty gets credit for the script, which sees a team of extremely competitive doctors trying to rise above their peers. This leads to Nelson's idea to seek out the answers of the afterlife. He accomplishes this by temporary dying for a minute and then being brought back via good old paddle shock. It's actually the only way I can achieve climax now. He recruits the help of his friends with the experiment, and one by one, for the most part, they go through with the procedure. Things seem to be going well at first, but what follows are a series of bad confrontations from their sins. It's essentially a slick sci-fi version of a Christmas story where our leads have to repent in order to make this shit go away. The remake follows the basic plot but changes locations and scenarios. I found this cast to be far more unlikeable, and when it came time for them to come to terms with their past, they seemed to be doing it to stop the nightmares from unfolding rather than becoming genuinely good people. The biggest difference is the tone of the two. 1990 had a mystery thriller vibe with some genuine heart and slower moments. 2017 opts for the modern generic approach, giving the audience constant jump scares and loud noises. It also felt like it was 18 hours long, but it clocks in under two. The old movie can certainly be criticized for being a bit redundant with all the flatline scenes, but holy hell is there repetition afoot now. There are multiple flatlines. There are multiple PG-rated sex scenes. Sometimes they're just back and forth like a 3D baseball card. Flatline, bang a friend. Flatline, bang a friend. It's like a Wednesday afternoon for me at Buffalo Wild Wings. Then we have boardroom conversations with a bunch of filler nonsense that could have been cut altogether. This one really puts emphasis on the special abilities these guys get after they leave their conscious bodies and come back to them. They're more in tune with nature, with things around them. They can solve Rubik's cubes and figure out diseases fast. Whereas the original only touched upon this in like one conversation really quickly, and it's kind of an afterthought. It's just a little added sweetener to the pie. You don't add sweetener to a pie. I'm off script. Let's just keep going. The film is new though, so the effects should at least work in its favor, right? Come on, let's find out together in round three. This'll be fun. Sure, there's more fancy wizardry going on in the CGI department. You have things floating, things spinning, who's its and what's its galore. But it really is on a budget. There is some genuinely great cinematography in the original. A scene that immediately comes to mind opens in a downtown setting. There's a burst of neon colors and a great use of light and shadow. It's the type of setting that new properties like Stranger Things would draw inspiration from. It also has a great score to it. A synth wave style track pumping into the background works really well with the look. Granted, the film as a whole doesn't have that much style, but when it shows up, it shows up. There is no style to the new fail liners. Just shots of boring rooms with some new age tech lighting up here and there. Camera stays pretty stationary for the most part. There's also some of the death scenes which in comparison are incredibly weak. I thought for sure if nothing else, at least the creativity will show through in these dream sequences. Why else would they make this movie if not for the effects that they could use in these moments? But no, they're lame as fuck. I should have known better as soon as that stupid Sony logo hit the screen. The Ghostbusters remake, the Dark Tower, the Emoji movie, Jumanji remake. This is the kind of crap that Sony's bringing to the table. If there was music in the new film, I missed it completely. I have nothing left to say. Let's close this down. I think it's safe to say the new film fell flat for me. Are we clear? I had no horse in this race as I just recently watched the original, but I can't imagine many people out there really liking this new one more. Or even as a first time introduction into the world. Let me know your thoughts though. Leave a comment, vote for your winner. And remember, this is more than just reviews. This is Movie Feuds. And a special shout out to Patreon Jordan Marks for this episode's suggestion. I hate you for making me watch this new film, but I also love you for your continued support. It's a very confusing time we're living in these days. It's very confusing. Thanks for watching the video. Feel free to check me out on social media platforms for credibility purposes. Intern Sheila should be putting up some graphics for you to digest, I believe. Otherwise, you'll be out on the curb like your mom.