I will admit that when I first heard that my beloved Footloose was being
remade, I just about had a conniption fit. What was wrong with
Hollywood? Surely, with all the wannabe writers, producers, directors,
etc. there couldn’t be a shortage of new, fresh ideas. It seemed that
everything coming out was some sort of remake, and not very good remakes
at that.
Right then and there I made a vow. As God was my witness, I was not going to see that movie, no matter how many degrees of Kevin Bacon gave their blessing. Well, that vow lasted all of about a week after the movie opened. But it wasn’t my fault! My movie-going partner was dying to see it, and since it was the only movie out worth a damn at the time, I begrudgingly gave in.
There is no harsher critic than a movie-goer that is deeply loyal to the original. This movie was in for the fight of its life.
To its credit, Footloose 2.0 stays pretty true to the original storyline, characterizations, and themes of the original. Big city boy comes to small town, ruffles a few feathers, falls for the girl he’s not supposed to fall for, invokes a revolution, and alls well that ends well.
One element that I did enjoy that wasn’t present in the original was the relationship between Ren and his uncle. It was good to see that Ren had someone in his corner with a level head despite the small town mentality, provided a nice foil for Dennis Quaid’s character, even though not a major character.
Speaking of Dennis Quaid, I thought his character was too easily sympathized with. The character of Reverend Shaw was supposed to be the enemy. He was the authority figure responsible for the town’s ban on dancing. Lithgow’s Reverend Shaw was full of hell, fire, and brimstone and easily vilified. Quaid’s Shaw was not. It could very well be because it’s just Dennis Quaid, and how could anyone hate Dennis Quaid? Or because the audience was given the ability to sympathize with the character and understand that the actions of the character were based out of personal tragedy.
The dance scenes were alright. If memory serves, it seems that they cut Willard’s learning to dance scene short, and also the final prom scene. They both just seemed so much shorter than the original, and those were my two favorite parts.
A few other things:
• Is it me or could Julienne Hough pass for a Jennifer Anniston mini-me?
• And that the actor that was cast for Willard could pass for Chris Penn as well?
• Loved that the director kept the yellow bug, with its nonfunctioning passenger door.
• There were, at times, that the movie felt “hoochified” to give it the sex appeal that seems to sell so well these days
• Was not a fan of Blake Shelton’s version of Footloose, but loved the Jane Dear Girls version that Fandango gave me free from iTunes.
Final verdict? It was as well done as a remake could be done. And I freely admit that I was wrong for thinking that it would be horrible. Does it measure up to the original? Of course not. C’mon it’s Kevin Bacon. KEVIN BACON. But it definitely holds its own, and it will probably be an addition to the DVD collection.
If you saw it, what did you think?
Right then and there I made a vow. As God was my witness, I was not going to see that movie, no matter how many degrees of Kevin Bacon gave their blessing. Well, that vow lasted all of about a week after the movie opened. But it wasn’t my fault! My movie-going partner was dying to see it, and since it was the only movie out worth a damn at the time, I begrudgingly gave in.
There is no harsher critic than a movie-goer that is deeply loyal to the original. This movie was in for the fight of its life.
To its credit, Footloose 2.0 stays pretty true to the original storyline, characterizations, and themes of the original. Big city boy comes to small town, ruffles a few feathers, falls for the girl he’s not supposed to fall for, invokes a revolution, and alls well that ends well.
One element that I did enjoy that wasn’t present in the original was the relationship between Ren and his uncle. It was good to see that Ren had someone in his corner with a level head despite the small town mentality, provided a nice foil for Dennis Quaid’s character, even though not a major character.
Speaking of Dennis Quaid, I thought his character was too easily sympathized with. The character of Reverend Shaw was supposed to be the enemy. He was the authority figure responsible for the town’s ban on dancing. Lithgow’s Reverend Shaw was full of hell, fire, and brimstone and easily vilified. Quaid’s Shaw was not. It could very well be because it’s just Dennis Quaid, and how could anyone hate Dennis Quaid? Or because the audience was given the ability to sympathize with the character and understand that the actions of the character were based out of personal tragedy.
The dance scenes were alright. If memory serves, it seems that they cut Willard’s learning to dance scene short, and also the final prom scene. They both just seemed so much shorter than the original, and those were my two favorite parts.
A few other things:
• Is it me or could Julienne Hough pass for a Jennifer Anniston mini-me?
• And that the actor that was cast for Willard could pass for Chris Penn as well?
• Loved that the director kept the yellow bug, with its nonfunctioning passenger door.
• There were, at times, that the movie felt “hoochified” to give it the sex appeal that seems to sell so well these days
• Was not a fan of Blake Shelton’s version of Footloose, but loved the Jane Dear Girls version that Fandango gave me free from iTunes.
Final verdict? It was as well done as a remake could be done. And I freely admit that I was wrong for thinking that it would be horrible. Does it measure up to the original? Of course not. C’mon it’s Kevin Bacon. KEVIN BACON. But it definitely holds its own, and it will probably be an addition to the DVD collection.
If you saw it, what did you think?
