Dirty Dancing (2017): Season 1

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 16 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 24 Ratings

See All

2.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.4	Your Score
2.4	User Score Generally unfavorable reviews based on 24 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Season Details & Credits

Season Premiere Date: May 24, 2017

Summary: While on vacation in the Catskills with her family, Frances "Baby" Houseman (Abigail Breslin) falls in love with a dance instructor named Johnny Castle (Colt Prattes) in this TV movie version of the 1987 film of the same name.

Genre(s): Drama, Movie/Mini-Series, Music

Season 1 Episodes

No episode information is currently available for this season

See all Seasons and Episodes

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Robert Rorke

May 24, 2017

Breslin does a credible job with the role of Baby. ... The film tries to make a star out of him [Colt Prattes], and if that doesn’t quite happen, it nevertheless succeeds at showing the hidden talents of some of the medium’s most durable stars. Read full review

IndieWire Liz Shannon Miller

May 24, 2017

Between the bad lip-syncing, the inexplicable addition of musical numbers, and the pale imitation of classic moments from the original film, it just doesn’t work. Read full review

Scott D. Pierce

May 25, 2017

This TV movie is bloated with additional storylines and loses the joy of the original. ... Be prepared to fast-forward--a lot. Read full review

Robert Bianco

May 23, 2017

To say they (Abigail Breslin and Colt Prattes) have no onscreen chemistry is to minimize the problem: You actively want to get Baby away from him. Read full review

Bethonie Butler

May 23, 2017

It is neither good nor deliciously bad. It is a banal three-hour timesuck that manages to feel both rushed and drawn-out. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Matt Roush

May 18, 2017

This isn't so much dirty as drippy. [15-28 May 2017, p.17]

Kimberly Roots

May 18, 2017

The framing device the ABC version uses to bring us into and out of the story is so clunky, it’s not worth discussing. ... The whole endeavor feels like the Disney ride version of Dirty Dancing: cleaner, prettier and way frothier than the already frothy real thing. Read full review

SEE ALL 16 REVIEWS

User Score

Write a Review

2.4

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

User Reviews

spiralx

Jun 11, 2017

This is a decent remake. Forget the pearl-clutching and the pursed lips over any supposed 'desecration' because the original is considered so 'sacred'. And enjoy the new version for its expanded universe. I did. (All right: I still think Patrick Swayze is a more attractive Johnny thanThis is a decent remake. Forget the pearl-clutching and the pursed lips over any supposed 'desecration' because the original is considered so 'sacred'. And enjoy the new version for its expanded universe. I did. (All right: I still think Patrick Swayze is a more attractive Johnny than Colt Prattes. But the fact they sang all their own songs. AND danced. AND acted the roles perfectly well. Makes the remake perfectly watchable).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Roon3428

May 28, 2017

Remember that this is a remake. If you want it to be exactly as the original, watch the original. I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the original version.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

CodyYoung

Mar 2, 2018

I had not intended to view this film, I had not known the title was remade and thought I had downloaded the original. I was surprised to see Bruce Greenwood, and the rest of the cast seemed utterly unfamiliar. . .But I am middle aged and hadn't seen this film since I was a kid. I wrote itI had not intended to view this film, I had not known the title was remade and thought I had downloaded the original. I was surprised to see Bruce Greenwood, and the rest of the cast seemed utterly unfamiliar. . .But I am middle aged and hadn't seen this film since I was a kid. I wrote it off as faulty memory. As things went on, I began forming theories for why I hadn't seen Patrick Swayze and why the lead was so young (and Greenwood so old), like maybe at some point she would return after college and things would become familiar.

Obviously I was mistaken. However, all of this did force me to pay attention (as well as bring me to this page, trying to prove to myself I am not yet senile).

It is better than the rating above would suggest. . .In some ways it is even rather charming. Bruce Greenwood is great, and the arc concerning his eroding marriage and its redemption is tastefully done and probably the best bit in the film. The production value is solid, and the sixties presented has a sort of timeless quality which is endearing without being distracting. Some aspects are incredibly clumsy, such as the ivy league sexual predator . ..and just everything about him. His scenes feel rote and are artlessly executed. Some things are wholly mysterious, such as casting an individual who is stiff and uncomfortable in their own skin in the lead as a dancer in a movie which one would expect to emphasize, if not center upon, choreography. In order to hide their inability to move and general lack of rhythm, they are camouflaged amid competent talent whom don't shine in any way. . .Which means competent is the best that can really be said of this effort.

It isn't bad, but it doesn't have the courage to be exceptional, or even very good for that matter. It is a muted celebration of mediocrity which would be forgettable if only it had managed to make any real impression in the first place.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

coniatthebeach7

May 27, 2017

I thought the story was done well and I liked the addition of the parents' issues. The acting was good but the girl who played Baby was miscast. She did not have the charm and subtle attractiveness to play that part. She was too chubby and never looked like someone who had taken dancingI thought the story was done well and I liked the addition of the parents' issues. The acting was good but the girl who played Baby was miscast. She did not have the charm and subtle attractiveness to play that part. She was too chubby and never looked like someone who had taken dancing lessons so to receive applause for her performance with Johnny at the other club was ridiculous. It could have been so much better with a different person in that role.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

JPK

Jul 15, 2019

Oh Look, Another Terrible Remake
This remake has none of the ingredients that made the 1987 film great.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

AMB1953

Jun 1, 2017

This was very disappointing!! Neither of the leads danced anywhere as well as there predecessors. Nor was their acting up to snuff. I can not in good conscience recommend anyone waste 2 hours on this.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

NeutralMilkH

Jul 8, 2017

I'd just like to give a shout-out to all my friends who suggested to me that I should actually watch this when it airs... it was completely worth it (sarcasm). Considering the fact that I hadn't even watched the original, I was amazed out how quickly I was offended over the crappy chemistry,I'd just like to give a shout-out to all my friends who suggested to me that I should actually watch this when it airs... it was completely worth it (sarcasm). Considering the fact that I hadn't even watched the original, I was amazed out how quickly I was offended over the crappy chemistry, horribly dull and uninspired "musical moments," and the long... long... long in a way that's not good like Lord of the Rings... long... long... long in a way that's even worse than the Hobbit... long... long... running screen time... Jesus Christ! What was the point of the singing if it was mostly going to rehash old music? Just... let the score speak for itself, and don't pass down to your children the waste of time (and complete abomination) that is this "Thank-god-it-was-made-for-tv-and-not-for-theatres-because-otherwise-I-would-actually-have-to-spend-money-to-see-it-only-to-be-ultimately-unsatisfied-with-how-it-turned-out" movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Seasons & Episodes

39

Series Overview
Season 1

39
- Season 1 Overview
  Air Date: May 24, 2017
- No episode information is currently available for this season