Footloose (remake)

Okay this is one remake NO ONE wanted to be made,except for Paramount Pictures & MTV Films. While the final product turned out to be not so bad, it was still uneeded. I mean it brought very little new since it is an almost scene by scene, line-by-line remake of the original. So it felt pointless. So let me mention a bit about what was different from the first one: black actors and dancers in the background. They needed to make it politically correct (the first one was an all white cast with an all white esemble of extras), but taken in consideration that this was a small town of rednecks they should had let it stay politically incorrect. The dances occassionally is modern b-boy style (performed by the waaayy too good black extras). The character of Ren MacCormick (Kenny Wormald) this time is an orphan from Boston who comes to live with his uncle & family. Oh there is an intro scene about what caused the ban on music & dancing that wasn't shown in the first film (because it wasn't needed). Dennis Quaid as the Reverend Moore can't hold a candle to John Lithgow' original portrayal of a fanatical, but sincere & honest pastor. Quaid's antagonist role was dilluted between him, the school principal, the librarian and other members of the city council. Now his role doesn't feel like an antagonist, but like a pitiful misguided hurt parent. The dance sequences are almost identical to the first one. The new songs suck. The only bright spot is when the familiar theme "Footloose" is played and Deniece Williams "Lets Hear it for the Boy". bTW the dude that plays the Christopher Penn country bumpkin sounds exactly like him. The only difference is that Penn looked convincing in the "I-can't-dance-shit" transition to "look-at-me-now' dance moves. The new guy learned too fast and became too good too soon. The other bright spot is the actress that play's Ariel Moore, the love interest is extremely beautiful. She reminded me a little of a younger version of Jennifer Aniston, but hotter. To summarize: if there wasn't an original Footloose this could have been a very entertaining movie. But since there was one, and the fact that Wormald does not delivers a Kevin Bacon-like star-is-born performance, plus since it feel repetitive you always get the thought of 'why in heavens name they made this film?' 5/10

 

The first "Footloose" was complete shit, so by osmosis the 2nd is complete shit.

Love your comparison of John Lithgow and Dennis Quaid. Like it even begs a mention. Two excellent actors collecting a paycheck in two shit films.........because that's what excellent character actors sometimes do to keep working.

It's too bad this is remembered as Kevin Bacon's breakout role. It's more a stain on an otherwise excellent career.

 

Any regular working actor, especially in demand character actors who aren't box office stars have been in tons of shitty movies. "Footloose" is no exception, regardless of what it did at the box office.

Bacon has always been solid when given a decent role.

Check John Lithgows career resume, as an example of this.

 

Nah, comparing "Footloose" to "Breakin" is like comparing "Gone with The Wind" with "Plan 9 From Outer Space". It might be hated by you guys but "Footloose" is considered as much as a dance classic as "Saturday Night Fever" or "Dirty Dancing". The film is a product of its era (early 80's) as much as "Top Gun" another film that is as much beloved as it is despised. Both also had great songs in their soundtracks.

 

I agree with Antaknee. The original Footloose is not a stain on Bacon's career IMO because Bacon was the one who actually mad the original watchable the first and only time I ever saw it. It was bad, but not walk-out-on bad. Plus Bacon's charisma and charm showed through, and his excellent performance forever separates itself from a truly forgettable film.

 

I just saw Panchy's movie poster.

Are these kids supposed to be in High School?

They must be ridiculously retarded.

::