Watch Footloose For Free

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

As one of the few people on this earth who has never laid eyes upon the original 1984 "Footloose", I came into this version with no preconceived notions or expectations. As such, I was pleasantly surprised, although not outright blown away.For a basic plot summary, "Footloose 2011" is a typical "teens vs. adults" flick. When a car crash (after a night of partying) kills five high school seniors, their community pastor (played by Dennis Quaid) restricts future teenage rebellious behavior by controlling the town with strict laws/curfews. That is, of course, until his daughter (Julianne Hough) meets the new kid in town from Boston (Kenny Wormald) and the town gets stirred up once again.The prevailing factor in this film experience is that the movie is good at what it does. It provides everything that one expects to see, such as: incredible dancing, popular music, attractive men/women, and teen-centered plots. All those things are accomplished with aplomb.An "added bonus" is the quality of acting from both the youngsters and adults (especially Quaid) in the film. Though inherently a bit hokey, this movie could have diverged into pure cheeseball without such strong performances.Thus, while I can't give it an enormous star rating because it isn't an outright classic, it is very good at what it does (and if you like that kind of thing, your rating will be much higher). Three and a half stars would probably be a more exact ranking. Simply put, I had a good time watching this flick.

I already talked about the musical in my original review so I will not talk about it here or at least try not to or say stuff that I forgot. But seriously, I think I am the only one who agrees with Roger Ebert that the first one was bad, but the remake is bad also. But the difference is, I hate the remake even more. This might be the worst remake of all time and you will not understand the reasoning for this so I will try to explain to my very best. ITS THE SAME MOVIE. ONLY DONE WORST.I know a remake is suppose to be faithful to the original, but the first movie I wasn't a fan of and a lot of people weren't a fan of back then. So it would be best if they fixed these errors from the first movie and make the remake superior. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We have to have the same movie that feels like you have been assaulted and the movie actual gave me physical pain from watching it.What scenes are still there but done worse? The Tractor Scene is replaced with Driving Race Cars, The smacking and assault of Ariel scenes are more cringe worthy to watch, the drug scene is absolutely worse in all ways, the town hall scene is word for word. You get the point? THEY WERE TOO FAITHFUL!The songs are worse. Footloose is now a horrible country song ruined by Blake Shelton making the finale very hard to watch... and that's all I remember still.The casting is OK for the most part. But they got the worst person to play the Reverend, DENNIS FREAKING QUAID. UGH I HATE HIM SO MUCH. WHY?! He always has the same >:I face on every single movie he is in. Why couldn't you gave the Reverend to some newcomer instead of this guy!? But enough of that.I mean, I have never seen such a horrible remake in my life. They changed nothing. NOTHING! But it still made money because of a cult following. Do we want more remakes of bad films to come because of this? Like a Flashdance Remake, A Magical Mystery Tour Remake? Then please! I can't stop you. But I can only warn people about this.To quote Roger Ebert: "...The film's message is: A bad movie, if faithfully remade, will produce another bad movie."Amen.22/100 D-

I love the original and was really excited to see this remake. I was very disappointed. They copied the original, just added cell phones and CD's and a few modern dance moves. Same soundtrack, just a hint modernized, I'm pretty sure even some of the lines were exactly the same. There was nothing creative or original about this movie.You know that feeling where you see an actor/actress in a certain role and then you see them in another movie and it's like they were told to keep the same character but the film's setting is so completely different and all you can think is 'no, this is wrong, this just doesn't work'. It's exactly what I thought while watching this film but instead of the character(s) being wrong it felt like the whole movie was wrong.I would have even accepted it if the only thing they kept was the basic concept and redesigned the rest from scratch. But they played it too safe and ended up with a copy instead of a fresh film.That said if you've never seen the original Footloose it's alright.

The previews looked terrible but I wanted to like it and thought maybe it would be fun fluff. Nope. The original, '80s version wasn't rocket science but it was fun and sweet with great music and was loved by kids and adults. My mom played the soundtrack all the time. The premise of the original was taken with a grain of salt. In the remake they try to focus on the premise by getting all dramatic and emotional which just makes the fact that dancing is outlawed outrageous and comical. Not to mention, why would they outlaw dancing for drinking and driving? That's rather far fetched. In the original both Ren and Ariel had problems...but they seemed to deal with them like any other teen, with trademark angst, so, you could identify with them and like them. In the remake they have therapy kind of anger and issues that I could not identify with and the script failed to make the characters sympathetic, so, I didn't care about them. Ren was more just angry and a bit of a jerk (though, lesser in the sense that they added much bigger jerks to this film, I suppose in an attempt to make him more likable, though, that failed), and Ariel was also angry, reckless, slutty, bratty, and made her best friend angry...what is to like about that? In the original, Kevin Bacon was cute and charming and a leader. In this one Ren is kind of dorky, has a weird Boston accent that comes in and out, brooding, and everyone in the film is angry, rebellious and breaking the law of dancing so there is no real reason for Ren to even be in this film other than to add to the mix. He doesn't stand out in anyway, he just seems like some random face in the crowd trying to get through school so he can grow up to be an angry adult who works as a mechanic or something.In the original there was a great pop soundtrack which worked and held the film together and made it fun. In this one there is country, hip hop and rock? None of it holds together as one working piece, kind of jumps you around, and doesn't give you any sense of the film. I mean, pick a freakin' theme. Just one.In the original it was just a bunch of kids who liked to dance. In this film apparently everyone in a small Southern town is a professional dancer and likes to create synchronized line dancing to '80s songs. In the original you felt for their plight because the rules put upon them were ridiculous and Ariel was reckless because she felt pent up by the rules. In this version they were doing the exact same things that got them into trouble in the first place. There was no change, it was just illegal so they weren't really pent up and acting out. Anywhere in America it is illegal for minors to drink but minors get together in field parties and house parties, anyway. And, realistically, you could get a ticket for playing your music too loud and disturbing the peace. It just depends on the cop. Also, of course if a father sees his daughter behaving in a slutty manner with some new boy he's not going to want her to see him and will probably ground her. So, the point of this films is void. In the original the point was the rules were ridiculous and the parents were over the top. In this film they're mostly just being parents.Also, Ren vandalized the placer where he works?? Not only is he an idiot but clearly he likes to 'cause trouble. He seems more like someone who is going to end up in jail than someone who is going to be a hero and make a difference in a town.Clearly this is just a film where someone was trying to profit off the 'Step Up' success and use an old, popular brand to try to draw a crowd. Why not just let the film survive on its own rather than trying to meld some weird country and hip hop world together. It just seemed forced, calculated, ridiculous and unrealistic. If most of the film seems ridiculous and unrealistic you lose the point in watching it. I really get the sense that the writers don't have much point of reference of the world other than living in Los Angeles and watched a bunch of episodes of 'Gossip Girl' so they could understand the teen plight and how they interact, then thew a country hillbilly meets Boston spin on it. Considering, in a lot of small towns the kids are still fairly innocent and polite, it would have been easy to stick to the original film rather than try to make this an 'updated' film where all kids are angry, bratty and doing pretty much everything to make a parents cringe. Why would anyone like, admire or want to be those kids?