While John DeFore from The Hollywood Reporter simply figures the reboot is "as daffy as the original and a lot less fresh," CinemaBlend's Conner Schwerdtfeger concludes his review with the words "Though competently directed and well-acted, Flatliners does little to set itself apart from a run-of-the-mill thriller. True to the material, it simply lacks a pulse. On a superficial level, the film will most likely deliver the requisite scares (albeit cheap jump scares) to enter the Halloween season, but it probably will fail to leave a lasting impression." The resume by Andrew Barker posted on Variety isn't totally negative while raising a valid question: "As dull as it gets, Flatliners never sinks all the way into outright fiasco, and there's enough talent both behind and in front of the camera to keep things on the right side of basic competence. The actors do what they can with the material, and Oplev happens upon a few decent visual ideas. What's missing, however, is any indication why anyone involved wanted to revisit this material." "Flatliners is an agonizingly boring remake of a movie about the dangers of bringing things back from the dead. Even with Ellen Page and Diego Luna as sexy idiot doctors, this new version of a 1990 Joel Schumacher thriller is still a generic slog" is the word from David Ehrlich reviewing the movie for IndieWire. Adam Nayman from The Ringer even asserts "Page probably wishes that she was not in this movie either" and continues being sarcastic because "it's always nice when movies about which there's nothing worthwhile to say find the time to review themselves" after referring to a scene where "Courtney and James are comparing notes on what it's like to flatline, and she asks him if he saw anything disturbing, to which he replies, no." Screen Rant's Chris Agar takes the view that "Flatliners is an unmemorable redux hampered by poor writing and a general lack of thrills that fails to capture the attention of its audience" and suggests "even those intrigued by marketing would be better off waiting for home video, or simply rewatching the 1990 version."

Unusually plain words come from Christian Holub reviewing for Entertainment Weekly: "Flatliners is dull and indecisive. [...] It often feels like Flatliners is trapped between multiple genres without knowing exactly what kind of movie it wants to be, and the result is a confused mess." The Verge's Tasha Robinson points out that "the Flatliners team could have saved their remake — and chose not to. Instead, they made a film about the dangers of playing God, or at least playing God with sloppy scientific protocols." Ryan Porter of Toronto Star quips "the remake of this original Kiefer Sutherland/Julia Roberts blockbuster might be boring if it wasn't so unintentionally funny." And Mark Harrison from the website Den of Geek comments "Ellen Page is far better than this sort of thing, and although she comes out of it the best, Ben Ripley's script really doesn't give the cast much to do." and finally puts the movie's main dilemma in a nutshell by expressing "Flatliners is a mediocre remake that utterly fails to update the original in any meaningful way. There is no reason for it to exist. But its failure is compounded by the fact that there was every chance of it being superior, with the right take. Instead, it's not scary, it's not thought-provoking and it's simply not worth your time."

What do you think of all those harsh words? And most importantly, if you have already seen the movie yourself, are the largely negative reviews justified? Feel free to leave your point of views in the comment section below!