Dirty Dancing (2017)
  • Series Premiere Date: May 24, 2017
Metascore
39

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 16 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 16
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 16
  3. Negative: 8 out of 16

Critic Reviews

  1. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    May 23, 2017
    37
    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.
  2. The Atlantic
    Reviewed by: Sophie Gilbert
    May 24, 2017
    30
    This contemporary version, stuffed with subplots and extended dance sequences and terrible writing (“We’re all gonna be worm food, anyways,” Baby tells Johnny in one impressively lust-squashing shrug of a line) can’t decide whether it wants to emulate the original Dirty Dancing or transform it into Chekhov. Either way, it’s less the time of your life and more three hours you’ll never get back.
  3. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Bethonie Butler
    May 23, 2017
    30
    It is neither good nor deliciously bad. It is a banal three-hour timesuck that manages to feel both rushed and drawn-out.
  5. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Daniel Fienberg
    May 23, 2017
    30
    I wish to praise Abigail Breslin's lead performance in the ABC remake of Dirty Dancing that nobody asked for and nobody is likely to truly enjoy.
  6. TV Guide Magazine
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    May 18, 2017
    30
    This isn't so much dirty as drippy. [15-28 May 2017, p.17]
    All this critic's reviews
  7. Variety
    Reviewed by: Sonia Saraiya
    May 18, 2017
    30
    A sappy, passionless, schlocky remake of the original, without even the iota of imagination necessary to expand upon the 1987 film. Nearly every element of the film that caught worldwide audiences’ imaginations has been sanded down into an advertisement-ready imagining of the swinging ‘60s.
  8. Boston Herald
    Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    May 24, 2017
    25
    Its three-hour remake is poorly cast, badly choreographed and auto-tuned to an inch of its life, with a “La La Land”-inspired plot twist that is sure to make no one happy.
  9. TVLine
    Reviewed by: Kimberly Roots
    May 18, 2017
    25
    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.

Awards & Rankings

44
#44 Most Shared TV Season of 2017

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
2.4

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 24 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 24
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 24
  3. Negative: 17 out of 24
  1. Roon3428
    May 28, 2017
    8
    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 theRemember 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.… Full Review »
  2. JPK
    Jul 15, 2019
    3
    Oh Look, Another Terrible Remake
    This remake has none of the ingredients that made the 1987 film great.
  3. CodyYoung
    Mar 2, 2018
    5
    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 seeI 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.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »