MovieChat Forums > SnagsWolf > Replies
SnagsWolf's Replies
Thanks. I enjoy these kinds of movies, so I just ordered 'Before I Fall' from my library.
Translation: "People like movies I don't."
And that comes as a surprise to you?
All she had to do was get a gun, and do what she did the day she locked herself in her room. The killer ended up in her shower. Just wait for the killer to come out of the shower, pull out the gun, and end the movie.
The killer would have no idea she'd gotten a gun, and would do the same thing as the previous day.
Yes, if she's walking around carrying an axe, the killer will probably change tactics. But if she has a gun in her pocket, the killer's not going to be aware of that. In that case, she could walk into the tunnel, wait for the killer to appear, pull out the gun, and blam!
One other thing she could have tried, is to sacrifice one of her lives in order to unmask the killer. Go for the mask, and tear it off as the killer stabs her. Mystery solved.
Yes, when she did something different, so did the killer. As I said:
"repeat the actions of the previous day"
Saw it today and it wasn't horrible. I'd give it a 6/10.
Like Groundhog Day, there's never an explanation for why this is happening to her. They mention she shares the same birthday as her dead mother, making you wonder if that's why she keeps living the day over.
I thought it was a weak episode. The daughter story should have been a sub-plot, not the main plot.
I got the impression that even though Deckard didn't know where his daughter was, he knew the people who knew where she was. That's why he was a danger to them.
The original is set in 2019. Don't think we're going to get there in 2 years.
However, in an alternate universe where we had replicants in 2019, having this technology 30 years later is within the realm of believability.
It's perverted to like boobs?
What makes him the same character? What does he do in this movie to make you believe he's the same character as the original movie?
Definition of 'sequel':
"b :the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially :a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one "
Tell me, exactly, how this movie continued the course of the story begun in the earlier version.
I just saw it. There was NOTHING in the movie that made it a sequel. No reference to the previous story. Not a single one. Sutherland made that comment a year ago, while the movie was still being made. It's obvious they changed their minds about making him the same character.
Here's a review that discusses it: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16390530/flatliners-review-2017-remake-sequel-kiefer-sutherland-ellen-page-diego-luna-niels-arden-oplev
"Bringing Sutherland in as a mentor figure — one experienced in the dangers of flatlining, and with advice about how to survive — raised the possibility of a Flatliners sequel that would acknowledge the past and push the franchise into the future. It could have helped move the plot along faster, leaving more time for new territory and new developments. And with an experienced older character on hand to draw out the protagonists’ motives and question their purpose, Flatliners could have focused on character development and conflict past the most basic, obvious first steps.
Instead, Oplev and screenwriter Ben Ripley (who also wrote Duncan Jones’ Source Code) opt for the laziest, most predictable route — an almost blow-by-blow remake that runs a new crew of flatliners through the exact same beats as the old ones, but with less energy and creativity. Sutherland’s character is a near-nonentity, a cameo who turns up in a few scenes as a generic cranky medical-center administrator. The character doesn’t do anything specific or interesting to justify Sutherland’s presence."
And this review: http://nerdist.com/flatliners-remake-review-horror/
"And for the record: I reject that this is a sequel. The only apparent tie is Sutherland, who has a small role as doctor who doesn’t even share a name with his original Flatliners character. It’s pure PR because horror sequels get a smidge more respect than remakes."
Also, can you name any other sequel that has the same name as its original? And have you actually seen this movie?
No, it isn't.
And I just saw the movie, and I can say with 100% certainty that it wasn't 'clearly understood' that he was the same character. That may have been filmed, and he may have been under the impression that would be in the movie, but it wasn't.
It's not a sequel.
Why would he have a different name if it was the same character? Try making sense.
And like I said, I just saw the movie. His character in this movie has nothing to do with what happened in the previous movie.
I'm looking at IMDb, and it's listed as a different character for each movie. And I just saw the movie a few hours ago. Keifer's character has no connection to what happened in the previous movie.
The trivia section is written by fans, and not always fact. If you look again, there's an argument going on in the IMDb trivia section about whether this is a sequel or remake.
And Keifer isn't playing the same role.
He's not reprising his role. In the original, his name was Nelson. In this movie, his name is Dr. Barry Wolfson.
I disagree. Saw it today, and there's no connection at all to the first movie, other than a similar plot. Even Kiefer Sutherland is playing a different role.
Saw it today, and I didn't see anything that led me to believe it was a sequel. No connection at all to the previous story, other than a similar plot. So I'd say it's a remake instead of a sequel.