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. Uncle Barky
    Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    May 24, 2017
    50
    Breslin and Prattes are more or less adequate in the pivotal lead roles, but certainly no match for the smoldering chemistry that Swayze and Grey displayed both on and off the dance floor.
  2. IndieWire
    Reviewed by: Liz Shannon Miller
    May 24, 2017
    50
    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.
  3. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Leah Greenblatt
    May 22, 2017
    42
    ABC's earnest, anodyne remake has managed to surgically extract the magic--leaving the story and signature lines intact while suctioning out all the subtlety, charm and lead chemistry that defined the iconic 1987 original. [26 May 2017, p.55]
  5. The Salt Lake Tribune
    Reviewed by: Scott D. Pierce
    May 25, 2017
    40
    This TV movie is bloated with additional storylines and loses the joy of the original. ... Be prepared to fast-forward--a lot.
  6. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Lorraine Ali
    May 24, 2017
    40
    Overall, the new version of Dirty Dancing never finds its footing.
  7. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Neil Genzlinger
    May 23, 2017
    40
    A real musical deploys its songs organically; here they tend to interrupt rather than enhance. ... [A] sterile imitation.
  8. New York Magazine (Vulture)
    Reviewed by: Jen Chaney
    May 23, 2017
    40
    In summary, the new Dirty Dancing is disappointing and a bit all over the place. But its biggest sin is that it’s bloated and boring.

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 »