Footloose

I love the original and was really excited to see this remake. I was very disappointed. They copied the original, just added cell phones and CD's and a few modern dance moves. Same soundtrack, just a hint modernized, I'm pretty sure even some of the lines were exactly the same. There was nothing creative or original about this movie.

You know that feeling where you see an actor/actress in a certain role and then you see them in another movie and it's like they were told to keep the same character but the film's setting is so completely different and all you can think is 'no, this is wrong, this just doesn't work'. It's exactly what I thought while watching this film but instead of the character(s) being wrong it felt like the whole movie was wrong.

I would have even accepted it if the only thing they kept was the basic concept and redesigned the rest from scratch. But they played it too safe and ended up with a copy instead of a fresh film.

That said if you've never seen the original Footloose it's alright.

The small town of Bomont imposed curfews and banned loud music and dancing after an accident killed five teenagers including Rev. Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid)'s son. Three years later, Ren MacCormack (Kenny Wormald) moves from Boston to live with his aunt and uncle after his mother's death from leukemia. He finds the small town restrictive. He also finds reverent's daughter Ariel (Julianne Hough) rebelling against the system. He makes a friend in Willard (Miles Teller).

I don't think it's a wise move to show the accident. It makes the ban more reasonable and harder to oppose. The Reverend is supposed to be overreaching and becoming unreasonable over the years. However the bigger problem has to be Kenny Wormald. He's more of a dancer than an actor. He doesn't have the charisma or the likability to lead. Julianne Hough comes off better. Although I would have prefer she has better separation between her two lives. She needs to dress down more as the preacher's daughter. This is a functional dance movie but not much else. It's also sad to see that the filmmaker can't think of ways to change up the story. This is obviously a Julianne Hough star vehicle. So it would be so much better to make her the newcomer to town and the lead of the movie.

Full disclosure time: I saw the original 1984 version at the now-defunct Cinema 8 multiplex at the also-now defunct Bon Marche Mall (the buildings have been renovated into other places) and I remember enjoying it very much at the one time I watched it in its entirety. I had also bought the soundtrack LP album beforehand and had highly enjoyed that several times as a teenager. Then there were also videos of several of its hits like Deniece Williams' "Let's Hear It for the Boy", Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out for a Hero", and Kenny Loggins' title song which consisted mainly of clips of Kevin Bacon's (or his dance double's) movements. So it was with all that in mind that I saw this remake with an open head. The verdict: I still had a good time though my excitement factor wasn't as overwhelming perhaps because of my fond memories of the original and some of the changes didn't seem necessary. Still, having the actor Miles Teller playing the same role done by Chris Penn nearly 30 years before in learning to dance and enjoying himself as a result was still a highlight in both versions. And former "Dancing with the Stars" pro Julianne Hough shows some chops in reenacting the Lori Singer role. And while Kenny Wormald won't make you forget Bacon in his iconic role, he's not too bad either. And the same goes for Dennis Quaid playing the John Lithgow part. So on that note, this version of Footloose is recommended.

The previews looked terrible but I wanted to like it and thought maybe it would be fun fluff. Nope. The original, '80s version wasn't rocket science but it was fun and sweet with great music and was loved by kids and adults. My mom played the soundtrack all the time. The premise of the original was taken with a grain of salt. In the remake they try to focus on the premise by getting all dramatic and emotional which just makes the fact that dancing is outlawed outrageous and comical. Not to mention, why would they outlaw dancing for drinking and driving? That's rather far fetched. In the original both Ren and Ariel had problems...but they seemed to deal with them like any other teen, with trademark angst, so, you could identify with them and like them. In the remake they have therapy kind of anger and issues that I could not identify with and the script failed to make the characters sympathetic, so, I didn't care about them. Ren was more just angry and a bit of a jerk (though, lesser in the sense that they added much bigger jerks to this film, I suppose in an attempt to make him more likable, though, that failed), and Ariel was also angry, reckless, slutty, bratty, and made her best friend angry...what is to like about that? In the original, Kevin Bacon was cute and charming and a leader. In this one Ren is kind of dorky, has a weird Boston accent that comes in and out, brooding, and everyone in the film is angry, rebellious and breaking the law of dancing so there is no real reason for Ren to even be in this film other than to add to the mix. He doesn't stand out in anyway, he just seems like some random face in the crowd trying to get through school so he can grow up to be an angry adult who works as a mechanic or something.

In the original there was a great pop soundtrack which worked and held the film together and made it fun. In this one there is country, hip hop and rock? None of it holds together as one working piece, kind of jumps you around, and doesn't give you any sense of the film. I mean, pick a freakin' theme. Just one.

In the original it was just a bunch of kids who liked to dance. In this film apparently everyone in a small Southern town is a professional dancer and likes to create synchronized line dancing to '80s songs. In the original you felt for their plight because the rules put upon them were ridiculous and Ariel was reckless because she felt pent up by the rules. In this version they were doing the exact same things that got them into trouble in the first place. There was no change, it was just illegal so they weren't really pent up and acting out. Anywhere in America it is illegal for minors to drink but minors get together in field parties and house parties, anyway. And, realistically, you could get a ticket for playing your music too loud and disturbing the peace. It just depends on the cop. Also, of course if a father sees his daughter behaving in a slutty manner with some new boy he's not going to want her to see him and will probably ground her. So, the point of this films is void. In the original the point was the rules were ridiculous and the parents were over the top. In this film they're mostly just being parents.

Also, Ren vandalized the placer where he works?? Not only is he an idiot but clearly he likes to 'cause trouble. He seems more like someone who is going to end up in jail than someone who is going to be a hero and make a difference in a town.

Clearly this is just a film where someone was trying to profit off the 'Step Up' success and use an old, popular brand to try to draw a crowd. Why not just let the film survive on its own rather than trying to meld some weird country and hip hop world together. It just seemed forced, calculated, ridiculous and unrealistic. If most of the film seems ridiculous and unrealistic you lose the point in watching it. I really get the sense that the writers don't have much point of reference of the world other than living in Los Angeles and watched a bunch of episodes of 'Gossip Girl' so they could understand the teen plight and how they interact, then thew a country hillbilly meets Boston spin on it. Considering, in a lot of small towns the kids are still fairly innocent and polite, it would have been easy to stick to the original film rather than try to make this an 'updated' film where all kids are angry, bratty and doing pretty much everything to make a parents cringe. Why would anyone like, admire or want to be those kids?

I was a teen when the original movie came out, and I also live near Lehi, Utah where it was filmed which made me think fondly of the movie whenever I drove by the Lehi Roller Mills. (Today it is a sprawling metropolis, resembling little of the sleepy little town like in the movie.) When I heard another pointless remake was coming out, I decided to give it the Redbox treatment instead of completely boycotting it.

After watching it with my wife who had never seen the original, I was able to say, "Not so bad, but pointless as a remake." Most of the original music (which I still love) was recycled into something recognizable but not lovable. The scenes played out nearly identical to the original but with different actors. The whole way through it, I had the feeling that the director was watching the original on a hand-held device, then turned to the actors and said, "I have an idea for this next scene." If I recall correctly, even the dialog where it wasn't modernized with MP3 players (instead of cassette players) and cell phones (instead of...what the heck did we have?) was word for word.

Usually remakes are for big block busters where today's technology and special effects can outshine the feeble attempts of the past and make a great story better by sucking the audience in. This movie had none of that, and in summary, became another pointless Hollywood rehash for quick cash. The only improvement I could acknowledge was a sub-plot that explained Ren's actions a little better, but it was still not an excuse to remake a classic.

My advice: watch the original. It's much better.