MovieChat Forums > Footloose (2011) Discussion > NO reason to remake a classic.....howeve...

NO reason to remake a classic.....however, I gotta say...

posted 13 years ago by comedygold
19 replies | jump to latest

I was dragged to this remake.
I believe the original IS a classic and wanted no modern version to hip-hop up Ren & the yellow bug.

But it was shot here in Atlanta metro so I had to go and see all the familiar small town (actually just Atlanta suburb) buildings

First up, the criticism...

Hough could not act her way out of a paper bag...in the beginning. Somehow, her abilities visibly cranked up midway through. I knew who Hough was but had never seen her do anything. Her dancing was tight and she is amazingly hot...despite her voice.

The Hugh Jackman child playing Ren had the worst Boston accent. Somehow, though, this actor is from Massachusetts. I honestly thought he was covering an Australian voice. Look, there is no other Kevin Bacon and certainly there will never be a six degrees game based on this kid. Still, he did fine.

Willard was actually funnier in this and they cast a Rusty that is just as ugly as Sarah Jessica Parker, so kudos!!

Quaid was meh, McDowell as well.

The cast in '84 were better actors all around to be sure.

Still, the movie won me over. A little in the beginning, a lot later.
Main reason: it honored the original. It did subtle things without cheesy nods to the original. No cameos, just that all important yellow bug. :)

It opened with the original "Footloose" title track focusing on all the dancing feet.
Willard's learning montage used the original "Let's Hear it for the Boy"
Both great decisions.

The modernization was seamless as well. No hard core, in your face hip-hop and culture shock.
The variety of dance and music genres were fantastic. There was some rock, some hip-hop, some country.

It was modern.

The original was small town Texas and blacks did not play a big role. Yes, there was plenty of representation on the soundtrack but not in the characters. Well, this version demonstrated the blend that is much more representative of what I know to be Georgia and most of popular American culture today, so good job there also.

They pulled at certain heartstrings as well with Ren's mother and much more exploration into the polarizing loss within Ariel's family. For some, I think this was emotionally more connecting than even the first movie.

They did a good job. They did a movie worth watching again.
For a remake, a modern re-telling, they did a solid tribute. Honest.

[–] Librafan 13 years ago

Wellsaid

[–] monstermayhem32 13 years ago

I never say the original film but it seems as though the film was one of the better remakes around.

[–] comedygold 13 years ago

I agree
I don't think there was any reason to remake it.
However, for a remake of a movie that didn't need to be re-made, it was as good as any.

[–] joli1921 13 years ago

I have to agree on most things you said. I don't think Wormald is that bad an actor, but in any case, with Hough and him they didn't need to stay that close to the original.
Here's why: it's a dance movie and I would have wanted to either see more or longer dance scenes. When they cast 2 professional dancers, I was sure that it would be heavier on the dance. I missed that and it cost a star in my voting!

Had I been told earlier that sharing a sense of humor was so vital, I could've avoided a lot of sex

[–] comedygold 13 years ago

yeah, I was a bit hesitant about what they were going to do with dancing

But now, I would have liked to have seen even more.

Perhaps, in our new age of lots of bonus for home video (compared to '84) they have much more footage from Cowboys to use and the other scenes as well.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EyeofNewt555 13 years ago

Well said

[–] vbel 13 years ago

Agree with the OP and the more dancing idea. Unlike a movie like Let Me In where some hack director copies the original scene for scene and takes credit for writing it. If they have to do remakes this is the way to do it.

[–] happygolucky89 13 years ago

I totally agree with this! I am such a fan of the original I was hesitant as well to see the remake. I agree with all your comments about the acting, it wasn't anything special, but it sufficed. The music wasn't bad either, although I thought the song they used for Ren's solo in the warehouse was a bit random. But yeah, overall the movie wasn't bad.

[–] screen14 13 years ago

I was glad to be able to experience this remake without having seen the original, because I wasn't bugged with making constant comparisons. I think it's worth a 7/10 by itself, but going back and watching it next to the 1984 film (which I give a 7.5), I'd have to knock it down to a 5.5 for several reasons. The original is acted more professionally; Kevin Bacon, especially. But Kenny Wormald as the 2011 lead gets lost in everything going on around him and pretty much fades to the background and loses the spotlight to Miles Teller as Willard. The 1984 movie could improve from better flow and pacing, but it's a lot stronger at telling the main story and connecting the subplots. The remake leaves out Ren's gymnast background and just kind of glosses over some of the points that the 1984 movie brought to the forefront. In general, Footloose 2011 focuses too much on the dance and not enough in the acting and storytelling departments. It's really disappointing when you compare the two movies.

[–] Appealgirl 13 years ago

saw the original in my teens and loved it - for all sorts of reasons which had nothing to do with the acting the dancing or the story, it was more to do with it being "of my era" and cool!

Watched the remake today. Have to say the dancing is better - except the angry scene which isn't nearly as good as the original. the casting of the female lead is better than the original, although to be fair you would struggle to do worse than Lori Singer who just could not sell herself as the "must have" female - I mean come on would you go there? Anyway the female lead in the remake looked better and could dance better but her acting was pretty dreadful but she carried it off OK. Re the male lead. A bit torn here cos Kevin Bacon is Kevin Bacon and no way imho will you top that. However, Kenny is a better dancer, is cute and is and OK actor and I think he carried the story OK.

The story is a daft as they come - but then it was in 1984 so no real difference there. I have seen worse remakes and found it quite entertaining in a "sit back and watch" kind of way. I think I am OK with the remake cos there was alot not to like in the original (not least of which the dreadful Lori Singer!).

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] katurra 13 years ago

"The original was small town Texas"
The original was Utah not Texas.