Footloose

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.

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.

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.

I enjoy bad movies, and enjoy bad remakes even more. So when the opportunity to get advanced passes to the atrocious looking remake of Footloose came, I pounced on them just out of the sheer will to see what kind of monstrosity Craig Brewer and company came up with. The film had gone through a number of changes, and had plenty of room to improve on the original. Sadly, I do not think there was ever any hope for it.

After a horrific accident takes the lives of five high school seniors, the town of Bomont, Tennessee outlaws a number of activities for the teenage populace including dancing. Enter Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald), a city kid and distinct outsider to the close knit Bomont townspeople. He is confused by the bans, and after making a few new friends, sets out to get them abolished.

While the nostalgia factor may cloud the memories of some people, the original Footloose is really nothing more than a fun diversion packed alongside an absolutely infectious soundtrack that is still great even today. It is a fairly silly film really, but with the help of Kevin Bacon's 1984-era charm and charisma, the film remains a wildly enjoyable film. Yet somehow, in remaking the film for an audience in 2011, it seems like the filmmakers missed more than a few steps along the way.

Now I will be the first to admit that this new remake does have a handful of fun scenes and astonishing dance choreography. The trailers do a good job of showing off just how great some of the dance moves are from this new cast, but what it does not let on too much is that most of these scenes come when they are replicating scenes from the original film. I basked in the glory of hearing Kenny Loggins blasting, while watching the various pairs of feet dancing to the beat. And seeing Willard (Miles Teller) learning how to dance is one of the highlights of the film, much like it is the original film. A key dance sequence late in the film is also significantly better than I could have ever predicted.

But that is where the enjoyment ends.

The rest of the film that surrounds these scenes is dull and lifeless, moving at a snail's pace and just going through the motions. There is very little fun to be had, and should someone venture into the film without having seen the original, they may wonder why anyone wanted to remake it in the first place. Instead of trying to improve and make the plot line less ludicrous, the filmmakers left the entire crux of the film the exact same. They merely changed a few character traits around, shuffled in some racy dialogue, and took out the tractors and added in school buses. They sucked out all the fun, and what is left seems like a mere project that was cranked out with little to no thought for what audiences may actually perceive to be enjoyable.

Worse yet, the soundtrack is a totally forgettable affair. While it is the crucial element of the original film, it feels like a largely laughable affair here. I was originally intrigued at the idea of the film containing all the original songs, albeit covered by new artists. But somehow, all of the catchiness of the original tunes seems to have been stripped from these new ones. Instead, we are left with versions that have a country twang or overtly urban feel to them, and absolutely no reason to want to listen to these new versions ever again. I would be lying if I did not think the most memorable tracks in the film were the two original ones that somehow were deemed okay to fit into the film. I would register a guess that this is the influence of Brewer, who is best known for Hustle & Flow and Black Snake Moan. He has a distinctly Southern taste to his body of work, and practically forces it on this film. But in forcing this ideology, alongside two completely different genres of music, he crushes the film into submission, leaving many scenes an absolute mess.

The acting in the film is even more disappointing. Dennis Quaid looks embarrassed in every scene he is in, overacting as much as he possibly can to forget that he is in the film. Andie McDowell looks like she wandered in off the wrong set, and just decided to stick around as a background character. Wormald is a poor substitute for Bacon, and is an even worse lead for a major motion picture. I realize he is a dancer first and foremost, but leaving him to carry this film was an awful decision. He looks frightened and confused for the majority of the film, and quivers through most of his lines. He lacks Ren's charm, and is never believable when he rebels against authority. You want to believe in this character, but all you will do is laugh at how staggeringly bad Wormald's performance is. Julianne Hough, the female lead, at least attempts to act. She comes close to a breakthrough in more than one instance, but she comes off a bit too amateur for her own good. She makes a great dance partner for Wormald, but for what little shred of chemistry she has, it is made totally moot when he opens his mouth.

What redeems the film from being the awful travesty it should be is Teller's performance as Willard. The moment he walks on-screen, he has an energy to him that is simply unmatchable. He is the single best thing about the film, embodying the innocence, spirit and fun of Chris Penn's original performance. If you venture into this remake, see it for him and ignore the rest. You may find some remotely enjoyable experience buried in there somewhere.

4/10.

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?