Secondhand Reviews: "Footloose"

Rated PG-13 for sexual references, some violence (fist fighting) and teen drinking.

* * * * * * * * * *

OK, on the one hand I'd have to count myself in with the many people who look at the crush of remakes over the past few years and wonder if Hollywood has completely run out of original ideas. On the other hand, there have been a surprising number of remakes of recent vintage that actually do right by the original film: that don't just carbon copy the original, that do add something new to the mix but that also honor the intent of the original film makers and don't turn the remake into something the creators of the original would never have recognized (two that come to mind: "Let Me In" and "Fright Night"). And "Footloose" the 1984 original was a nice, OK movie, but not exactly a classic for the ages, so it's not like there was no room for improvement. So this could go any number of ways.

In the incredibly unlikely event that you're not familiar with the set-up, this is the story of a small rural community that has banned all public dancing and loud music and other such displays of lewd, raucous behavior. Into this town comes Ren MacCormack, a young man whose single mother has just died and has come to town to live with some relatives. Being from Boston, he's not exactly accustomed to the kind of rules the teens in this community live by, and he finds a lot of the teen community are in agreement with him... including his new potential love interest, the daughter of the town preacher (the preacher being one of the main forces responsible for instituting those laws). He's determined to fight back and reinstate dancing and fun. But will they be able to fight city hall, literally?

Have you heard that this remake is essentially the same movie all over again, with just a few touches of modernity added to make it seem a bit more contemporary, and a (kind of) plausible REASON for the dance ban inserted as a prologue? Well, it is. So is there a need to have the movie at all? Probably not, but I still enjoyed it. It's true that Kenny Wormald, former back-up dancer for Justin Timberlake, is not exactly the most dynamic actor on earth and definitely doesn't have the dangerous edge that Kevin Bacon gave to the role. On the other hand, Julianne Hough as the preacher's daughter strikes me as less stiff and more likable than Lori Singer from the original, Dennis Quaid does a fine job as the preacher (never letting you forget how everything he's done is really out of love for his daughter... he's no villain), and Miles Teller captures every bit of the sweet, innocent charm that Chris Penn had in the 1984 version of this story.

But it's more than just solid performances, good as they are. The movie as a whole sidesteps one of the major pitfalls that so many remakes fall into: the feeling that they're just going through the motions as they recreate the memorable scenes from the earlier film. Even though you've technically seen much of this story before, director/writer Craig Brewer puts a real sense of fun and enthusiasm into his film so that it never feels like a rehash, even if you're familiar with the original. I did appreciate the fact that even though we get new versions of a few of the memorable songs from the original (plus Kenny Loggins' original version of the title song), you also get contemporary music that doesn't make this movie feel like it's taking place in a complete time warp. Not to mention the fact that there are actual people of color in the story, which... let's face it... was something you really had to wonder about in the first version (I mean, what kind of KKK community was that town located in, anyhow?).

It does take a little getting used to, if you're familiar with Brewer's previous R-rated output ("Hustle & Flow", "Black Snake Moan") to see him as director of as wholesome a PG-13 movie as you're likely to find these days. But clearly this was a type of movie that's been inside him all this time just waiting to get out, because it actually feels more personal than his earlier work did. Or at least as personal as a light piece of fluff like "Footloose" can be, anyhow. It can be too easy to make this movie sound like a classic just because it isn't a bad film, which it very easily could have been. There are great movies, there are really good movies, and there are "pretty good" movies... this being one of the latter. But "pretty good" is much better than this film had any right to be, and parents might be pleased that in spite of the sexual references in the dialogue there are no actual sex scenes and the movie ultimately affirms the importance of family and positive parent/child relationships.

So if you have seen the original, you shouldn't be afraid of seeing this new version because you're afraid it will trash the memory of Kevin Bacon and company. If you haven't, there's probably an even better chance that you'll like it. And while it's not going to win any oscars (or, likely, even be nominated for any), there is hardly any crime in being simply a nice, entertaining time at the movies. The new "Footloose" is an enjoyable piece of fluff, with a cast that for the most part has charms equal to that of the 1984 version... even if I have some serious doubts that there will ever be a popular game called "Six Degrees Of Kenny Wormald".