No, I haven’t seen the remake of “Footloose,” in theaters now.
And I don’t plan to.
The original movie, which hit screens in 1984, wasn’t that good to begin with. Why would I watch a remake?
Granted, it’s starring one of my favorite dancers-turned-actress — the adorable Julianne Hough — and this version doesn’t feature Kevin Bacon in those faded jeans or that equally bad red suit. (Although the skinny tie has made some kind of comeback.)
While there are legions of diehard fans, I don’t think the movie was remake-worthy.
(And, to be honest, classics shouldn’t be remade, either.)
And if I can’t convince you, maybe movie guru Roger Ebert can: “This new ‘Footloose’ is a film without wit, humor or purpose. It sets up the town elders as old farts who hate rock ‘n’ roll. Does it have a clue that the Rev. Moore and all the other city council members are young enough that they grew up on rock ‘n’ roll? The film’s message is: A bad movie, if faithfully remade, will produce another bad movie.”
There were two ’80s-related movies that opened last weekend. The revival of “Footloose” racked in $16.1 million in its opening weekend; the prequel of a 1982 John Carpenter cult hit, “The Thing,” pulled in just $8.7 million.
Those two join the list of ’80s remakes — “Fright Night,” “Conan,” “Arthur,” “The A-Team” — that didn’t have radical results at the box office.
So why can’t these classics — or, at the very least, cult flicks — make it in 2011?
Don’t get me wrong, some of my favorite films — “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “The Breakfast Club,” “The Goonies,” “Say Anything” — were from the ’80s. But I wouldn’t want to see a remake of them, shot with different actors, in a different era, in a different context. It just wouldn’t work.
What do you think?