Footloose: Ritmo Contagiante

To the same extent Ava Gardner movies lingered on her face in the 1950's and Jessica Alba movies visually caressed her abdomen in 1990's movies so does this moving on the backside of Julianne Hough. Likely this has partially to do with Craig Brewer's personal interests and a lack of other interesting images to look at in a pointless remake of the Kevin Bacon "classic" (assuming you grew up in the 80's). The main drag on the film grows from the lack of a Kevin Bacon-level compelling talent among the cast. When Kenny Womald utters the iconic "let's dance" to the camera you could picture yourself opting to sit this one out instead. When Dennis Quaid as Ariel's father and town elder finally has his change of heart, it comes as no really emotional catharsis given Quaid's earnestness and track record as the good guy leading man. Now Randy Quaid would have made an interesting and likely challenging from a product standpoint casting choice. Julianne Hough plays Ariel as more sleazy than fun-loving and her dance moves do kind of make you agree to an extent with the Reverend. As always, Andie MacDowell brings her inexcusably flat line readings to a part that could have been cut from the film with little effect. Everyone else in the film comes across as the indistinguishable chorus line from a traveling company version of the Footloose Musical. Having said all that, the movie brings some entertaining visuals although it someone screws up the soundtrack; the version of "Holding Out for a Hero" used her is a sacrilege of the original Bonnie Tyler version of the Jim Steinman song. In short, see the original instead; although it wasn't very good either, the music was amazing.

I can't believe I wasted $7.50 last night to see this horrendous remake of "Footloose," but I was desperate to see a movie and nothing good was playing at the $1.50 theater. Why can't Hollywood leave remakes alone? Are screenwriters nowadays that unoriginal? Even though I felt that the 1984 film had a lame script (and acting), I loved the score, dancing, and scenery and the movie remains one of my favorite "guilty pleasures." Dean Pitchford wrote this script, which is almost a carbon copy of the original movie. Most of the same songs were used but were "updated." The only big difference is that the two leads--Kenny and Julianna--can actually dance whereas Kevin Bacon and Lori Singer couldn't (or at least not much). I'm still fuming at wasting all my money last night and would have walked out if I had paid only $1.50. Sorry to be so harsh in this review but I was not impressed. But I do hope that a better "dancing movie" comes along for Kenny and Julianna, because they are terrific dancers.

Like usual, I am beaten to the review page by the wannabes that made this wretched film. The studio hacks and lackeys got here and posted rave reviews first. This was lame, not that the original was all that, but did they really have to try this? Who is this Hough girl anyway, saw her on a zits commercial and it's like, "hey all, Julianne here" like anybody that does not watch one reality flick would know her. I promise this crap movie will not help, it is a stinker. Is it as good as the last? No where near. It is pretty much the same, Quaid turns in a good performance, as usual, but I wish he had turned this down. The rest of them, mediocre at best. Is Hollywood out of ideas? Is writing new material that hard? I think the remake era is over, please come up with something new and use real stars, not reality hacks who have long since been over their fifteen minutes.

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?

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.