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

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  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 the original version.
  2. AMB1953
    Jun 1, 2017
    0
    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.
  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 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 SwayzeI 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
  4. JPK
    Jul 15, 2019
    3
    Oh Look, Another Terrible Remake
    This remake has none of the ingredients that made the 1987 film great.
  5. NeutralMilkH
    Jul 8, 2017
    0
    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 notI'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
  6. coniatthebeach7
    May 27, 2017
    4
    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 dancing lessons so to receive applause for her performance with Johnny at the other club was ridiculous. ItI 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
  7. spiralx
    Jun 11, 2017
    9
    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 than Colt Prattes. But the fact they sang all their own songs. AND danced. AND acted the rolesThis 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

Awards & Rankings

44
#44 Most Shared TV Season of 2017

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
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
  1. 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.
    Read full review
  2. 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.
    Read full review
  3. 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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »