Sarafan: Would I enjoy playing it? If it's faithful to the original in terms of raw gameplay, most certainly. We have to remember however that the remake would probably mean 3D graphics. There are quite a few possibilities when it comes to this aspect. It could be an isometric 3D or a TPP 3D game. Being faithful to the original means isometric 3D and this what I expect from a potential remake. There's a Neverwinter Nights 2 mod which recreates whole BG1 on NWN2 engine. And it's good, so there's a huge potential for full scale remake. The 3D perspective wouldn't discourage me from buying nor playing the game.
My biggest fear is that a remake would introduce major gameplay changes to meet today's standards. This was the case when it comes for Final Fantasy 7 Remake. Of course the D&D license would limit the potential changes, but still they could be introduced. There's a D&D licensed game coming out soon that's called Dark Alliance. It has almost nothing to do with D&D ruleset. I fear that a potential BG remake could follow a similar road.
Thing with the 4th Edition ruleset is that it is very different from other editions, so the gamepay would be changed in ways that would be noticeable. For example:
* Fighters aren't just simple attackers, as they now have powers they can use (like every other class).
* Mages would be very different. In BG1, you might be familiar with how a mage might cast a sleep spell to trivialize an encounter (hopefully), and then not do anything meaningfully until you have a chance to rest. With 4e rules, the mage would instead be using an at-will power, like a basic attack spell that can be used infinitely, with the option of changing to an encounter or daily power if needed.
* (Encounter powers would recover once the game determins that you're not in battle; no need to rest. Daily powers would recover on rest.)
So, this game would be using an edition of the D&D ruleset, but it would still be very different because the edition used is very different.
(I actually think Wizards of the Coast should have called D&D 4e something else; that way players wouldn't have expected a similar game, and it wouldn't have to replace (and be replaced) by other editions of the rules. It's different enough that it could have stood on its own. I also note that the community, at the time, was divided on whether they liked this particular edition.)
(Also, I'm not familiar with 4e myself, but I do know some basic things about it, enough to know that it isn't similar to other editions.)