This movie really isn't that bad

As someone who was actually alive when the first one came out, I remember that it was liked because it was so bad it was good, and people made fun of it enough that it got stuck in everyone's heads. It was slightly entertaining, and everyone in it tried really hard, but it was a corny, overwrought mess about ugly, overdramatic 25-year-old teenagers squabbling with their silly, ridiculous parents, all of whom have stupid names. The kids aren't allowed to dance, and yet they dance like professionals, breakdancing and doing other goofy 80s dance moves. Certain vital plot points are glossed over, like Ren's talk with Shaw that makes Shaw allow dancing. They skip vital plot points, but will spend 10 minutes on Ariel's supposed poetry.

I'm no fan of remakes, but people's devotion to the first one sort of confuses me.


''That one felt like my dad!''

It was so not bad, I don't actually know why they bothered making it. It's not played up for laughs like some remakes. Nor was given some grander treatment. They just kind of made the movie again. I believe ya that the director loved the original. This comes off like somebody making a fan version of their favorite movie, as fans sometimes do. He just got somebody to give him a bunch of money to do it.

Relatively speaking, this is one of the better remakes out there. People generally hate remakes because it's true that too often, they are of poor quality. Red Dawn remake was trash, and Conan the Barbarian was b-movie quality, even something like The Scorpion King is better.



Footloose remake has trade -offs. Story drama from pro actors is sacrificed for better dance numbers. That's the easiest way to put it. The quality of acting in the original is incredible, but stunt doubles were used for many dance sequences. Basically the opposite for the remake.

I like both versions. This remake wasn't really necessary, but it's fun and I watch it with my mom sometimes.