This remake may have a great cast of actors but Dirty Dancing isn't just about the iconic lines and scenes. It's about the magnetic connections and tension between the characters, the swagger and desire, innocence and curiosity, and pushing the boundaries of the 1980s movies. Simply put, the magic is missing. The vibe, the joy, the heartache - none of it is there. Sometimes, remaking a classic movie is the WRONG move. When they get it right the first time....leave it alone! No need to waste three hours watching this film.
270 Reviews
Too many changes from the original
melheather24 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the original version but this one, not so much. If you are going to remake a classic, don't change major parts of it. The Housemans should not be on the verge of divorce, Vivian Pressman needs her Moe and where are the Schumachers? The casting was not good either. Colt Prattes is not any where close to being as good of a dancer as Patrick Swayze. Actually, all of the dancing is awkward and sub-par. The change in the ending and the fact that Baby and Johnny don't end up together is extremely disappointing.
Just like Dirty Dancing without the dancing and emotion
jsaus6330425 May 2017
First of all, the good. The music was fairly good. If the actors did their own singing, they did a decent job. Also, once you got past the two leads, the actors were pretty good.
The bad was the dancing and connection between the main characters. Unlike the original, you see no emotion between them. The dancing was not even near the original in quality. While the backup dancers were very good, the leads reminded me of the week 4 participants on "Dancing With The Stars". Most of the dancing was shot around the dancing. Few full body dance steps were seen as most shots were upper body shots leaving us to wonder what their feet were doing.
I did like the idea that Baby was watching the stage version and reminiscing about that summer. The ending gave some closure to their future lives.
I have seen the original, the stage version and now the remake. The original is still far and away the best, the stage version a distant second and the remake not worth your time. Neither capture the character development and emotion of the original.
The bad was the dancing and connection between the main characters. Unlike the original, you see no emotion between them. The dancing was not even near the original in quality. While the backup dancers were very good, the leads reminded me of the week 4 participants on "Dancing With The Stars". Most of the dancing was shot around the dancing. Few full body dance steps were seen as most shots were upper body shots leaving us to wonder what their feet were doing.
I did like the idea that Baby was watching the stage version and reminiscing about that summer. The ending gave some closure to their future lives.
I have seen the original, the stage version and now the remake. The original is still far and away the best, the stage version a distant second and the remake not worth your time. Neither capture the character development and emotion of the original.
Awful dancing not just dirty
blades_n_stone24 May 2017
Take all the charm,romance, chemistry and fun of the 1980s summer loving flick. Now toss it in a rock timber until all that great stuff is ground off in an abrasive mess of modern musical, ham handed choreography, bad hair cuts, worse costuming and back ground actors that are better looking than the main cast and you have dirty dancing 2017. This movie could not decide what it was. Romance? Kind of but not really. Caution tale? Well it draws on the moral delima of affairs but keeps them coming. Musical? If you like musicals with lots of dialog and a dinner theatre soundtrack. Remake? In the modern tradition absolutely. As they took what worked and removed it to make something else with the same name. I think it's a horror film. It's cheesy, has bad acting, a low budget with old name actors looking for a payday, stormy nights and a lurking ancient evil. That evil being the demon of remakes feeding on the souls of the cast. Honestly every person involved in this film should give everyone who watched it 5 dollars and a written apology.
Awful....Patrick is rolling over in his grave
sweeets1924 May 2017
This is seriously horrendous. Abigail Bresline is not a good dancer, she's not fit enough to be Baby and her outfits are awful. The dude playing Johnny is not good looking and a horrible actor. AND what is with the singing?!!! This is not a musical! ugh.....I hope this get's erased from history never to be seen again.
Please ABC make it stop
Jessica-katz525 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
There are some original movies you just should not ever touch. Dirty Dancing is close to the top of that list.
I can't even call this movie a remake, because nothing was remade. This movie was miscast and the whole vibe of the movie was just off.
In the original, there is just this raw, gritty, sexual, sensual vibe throughout the entire movie. Even when Baby and Johnny were just having regular conversations you could feel the connection between them.
I don't mind Abigail Breslin. I enjoy shows like Scream Queen. However, she should not have been cast as Baby. She was stiff, awkward, and uncomfortable. If you watch the original, yes, Baby was supposed to be new to dancing, but even in her goofiness, Jennifer Gray still managed to be feminine, fluid, flow'y, and sensual in her movies. Breslin was very rigid and boxy in her dancing and those lift scenes were so painful to watch. Legs splayed out, back straight as a board. No, Breslin isn't a dancer, but perhaps they should have cast someone with a bit of a dancing background to tackle this character.
If you're absolutely insisting on remaking an original iconic movie, you better make DAMN sure you're living up to the original, and even going BEYOND the original and making it better. This was just a complete abomination and Patrick Swayze is rolling in his grave right now.
Not only did they ruin this movie, but they had the BALLS! To add to the original and make up new scenarios. It's almost like ABC wanted to totally screw with viewers and kill all their hopes and dreams.
After watching the original, I know all people wanted to believe that Baby and Johnny lived happily ever after and had that once-in-a-lifetime love. Well, say no more! ABC is here to save the day and tell you just what DID happen to Baby and Johnny. They didn't end up together at all. Baby went on to get married to someone else and have his kid.
I enjoyed the trivia fact on this page: Jennifer Grey, who starred as Baby, turned down a role in this remake of the original film. When asked her reasons for declining, Grey said: "I was asked to do something on that show and I was flattered because I always want to be asked because it's nice to want to be included. But for me, it would be sacrosanct for me to do it because it didn't feel appropriate to me. It feels like if you're going to do your own thing, do your own thing."
Even Jennifer Gray knew to leave well enough alone. The original was way too valuable as a film to remake, and had she made a cameo in this movie, would have been hugely disrespectful to the late Patrick Swayze.
ABC for the love of God STOP remaking movies.
Sincerely, The entire world
I can't even call this movie a remake, because nothing was remade. This movie was miscast and the whole vibe of the movie was just off.
In the original, there is just this raw, gritty, sexual, sensual vibe throughout the entire movie. Even when Baby and Johnny were just having regular conversations you could feel the connection between them.
I don't mind Abigail Breslin. I enjoy shows like Scream Queen. However, she should not have been cast as Baby. She was stiff, awkward, and uncomfortable. If you watch the original, yes, Baby was supposed to be new to dancing, but even in her goofiness, Jennifer Gray still managed to be feminine, fluid, flow'y, and sensual in her movies. Breslin was very rigid and boxy in her dancing and those lift scenes were so painful to watch. Legs splayed out, back straight as a board. No, Breslin isn't a dancer, but perhaps they should have cast someone with a bit of a dancing background to tackle this character.
If you're absolutely insisting on remaking an original iconic movie, you better make DAMN sure you're living up to the original, and even going BEYOND the original and making it better. This was just a complete abomination and Patrick Swayze is rolling in his grave right now.
Not only did they ruin this movie, but they had the BALLS! To add to the original and make up new scenarios. It's almost like ABC wanted to totally screw with viewers and kill all their hopes and dreams.
After watching the original, I know all people wanted to believe that Baby and Johnny lived happily ever after and had that once-in-a-lifetime love. Well, say no more! ABC is here to save the day and tell you just what DID happen to Baby and Johnny. They didn't end up together at all. Baby went on to get married to someone else and have his kid.
I enjoyed the trivia fact on this page: Jennifer Grey, who starred as Baby, turned down a role in this remake of the original film. When asked her reasons for declining, Grey said: "I was asked to do something on that show and I was flattered because I always want to be asked because it's nice to want to be included. But for me, it would be sacrosanct for me to do it because it didn't feel appropriate to me. It feels like if you're going to do your own thing, do your own thing."
Even Jennifer Gray knew to leave well enough alone. The original was way too valuable as a film to remake, and had she made a cameo in this movie, would have been hugely disrespectful to the late Patrick Swayze.
ABC for the love of God STOP remaking movies.
Sincerely, The entire world
Horrific Atrocity
thegarbagecan-958-79342725 May 2017
This is seriously one of the worst remakes in history. It was entirely and wholly miscast. Debra Messing? Seriously? She wasn't even relevant in Will & Grace. This film had no heart, no taste, no class and no chance. I had to watch the original just to erase the memory of what I witnessed in this movie. It's the only chance you'll have to un-see this movie.
OMG, just awful.
MsMovie25 May 2017
I'm sorry, I don't know what they were thinking wanting to remake this movie, because there is no one quite like Patrick Swayze. I mean, Swayze wasn't super good looking, but he had charisma, swagger and he was a great dancer.
None of the dancing in this rehash is up to par, I'm sorry, but it's the truth. It's OK dancing, but in the original the dancing was vibrant and real.
The guy playing Johnny is OK, he just doesn't have what Swayze had in spades.
But the casting of baby, yikes, I think it was so wrong. They should have put Sarah Hyland in that role and see what she could do.
The music was as great as before, but again, just buy the original soundtrack.
It's hard to grasp why this is just so painful a rehash / remake, since it has a great cast.
I think it's just one of those cases where the original cast was just superior and you can imitate it but it just won't work.
If you liked this, watch the original and you'll feel the steamy heat between Swayze and Grey!
None of the dancing in this rehash is up to par, I'm sorry, but it's the truth. It's OK dancing, but in the original the dancing was vibrant and real.
The guy playing Johnny is OK, he just doesn't have what Swayze had in spades.
But the casting of baby, yikes, I think it was so wrong. They should have put Sarah Hyland in that role and see what she could do.
The music was as great as before, but again, just buy the original soundtrack.
It's hard to grasp why this is just so painful a rehash / remake, since it has a great cast.
I think it's just one of those cases where the original cast was just superior and you can imitate it but it just won't work.
If you liked this, watch the original and you'll feel the steamy heat between Swayze and Grey!
Just Plain Terrible.
CBChapman25 May 2017
Probably the worst remake in the history of the remakes! In this movie "Baby" couldn't dance in the beginning of the movie, nor could she dance at the end of the movie!! Terrible casting for that part and others. There was absolutely no chemistry between Baby and Johnny... I mean none. I truly feel bad for people that were a part of this movie, it's embarrassing.
The only thing this movie accomplished (other than wasting allot of people's time) was highlight how good the original was.
The only thing this movie accomplished (other than wasting allot of people's time) was highlight how good the original was.
if you like the original, don't watch
LoriCStapleton24 May 2017
This was painful to watch. The change in storyline and and relationships/situations was terrible. Cast was even worse, especially Baby. Also, there was singing added, which didn't work and completely through off the dynamic between the characters. Overall, completely terrible. Watching the original as I write this - what were they thinking??
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but.....
weavermovies24 May 2017
Time is infinite, with any generational reference simply a personal recollection..... overlapping and intertwining..... as each new life takes its first breath, along with each departing life offering its last, and somewhere in between those parameters, we all live.
As each sunset marks larger segments of our chronology, there is a never ending tendency to reminisce about the "good ole days", when in reality, what we experience now in the present will be the current, more youthful generation's "it's sure not like it used to be" reference when making similar future comparisons.
Now, from my own emotional perspective, although I can't possibly imagine how anything or anyone appearing in a remake presented on modern day television can compare to a movie like the original "Dirty Dancing" of thirty years ago, I can only hope as they watch this attempt, today's viewers will form those same fond irreplaceable memories I did, so during their later years, they can look back, take pause and smile as I do now in retrospect.
However, if I may borrow from that great American Patriot, Archie Bunker.....
"Those were the days!"
And with all due respect to those involved in tonight's presentation, as "nobody puts Baby in a corner", no one should have ever presented what was shown on screen this evening.
As each sunset marks larger segments of our chronology, there is a never ending tendency to reminisce about the "good ole days", when in reality, what we experience now in the present will be the current, more youthful generation's "it's sure not like it used to be" reference when making similar future comparisons.
Now, from my own emotional perspective, although I can't possibly imagine how anything or anyone appearing in a remake presented on modern day television can compare to a movie like the original "Dirty Dancing" of thirty years ago, I can only hope as they watch this attempt, today's viewers will form those same fond irreplaceable memories I did, so during their later years, they can look back, take pause and smile as I do now in retrospect.
However, if I may borrow from that great American Patriot, Archie Bunker.....
"Those were the days!"
And with all due respect to those involved in tonight's presentation, as "nobody puts Baby in a corner", no one should have ever presented what was shown on screen this evening.
Overhated
joey425915 February 2021
If you actually gives this remake a chance, it's not so bad, especially if you view it as it's own thing and not compare it to the original. I love the expanded storylines for all of the side characters, especially Baby's parents. I love the singing and that they had new artists update the same soundtrack from the 1987 film. It's a really cool concept that I think everybody should give a chance.
Now, are the leads as captivating as Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey? No. Abigail Breslin is a talented actress but she was terribly miscast as Baby. Colt Prattes had the unfortunate task of trying to fill Patrick's unfillable shoes and that overshadows how insanely talented he is, especially his vocals!
Give it a chance. Is it perfect? No. Is it the original? No. Enjoy it for what it is anyway,
Give it a chance. Is it perfect? No. Is it the original? No. Enjoy it for what it is anyway,
Not as bad as expected
melissajerickson29 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say, as an uber fan of the original, I was not expecting much from this remake. However, I was pleasantly surprised. While the chemistry was not automatic for the characters like it was in the original, the actors did get there eventually and the story became more believable. I also enjoyed the slight tweaks to the story-line and Sarah Hyland's portrayal of Lisa was much more likable than Jane Brucker's version. Also, the explanation for Johnny's dismissal seems a little more believable in this version as opposed to a cute little old couple stealing wallets in the original.
I was not really a fan of the actor's singing numbers because it often felt more like they were all lip-syncing. I also thought that Baby should have been a bit better of a dancer by the end of the movie. Not sure if this was an artistic choice or if Abigail Breslin should have had more dance training.
Overall, enjoyed the movie despite all the naysayers.
I was not really a fan of the actor's singing numbers because it often felt more like they were all lip-syncing. I also thought that Baby should have been a bit better of a dancer by the end of the movie. Not sure if this was an artistic choice or if Abigail Breslin should have had more dance training.
Overall, enjoyed the movie despite all the naysayers.
Baby belongs in the corner - Contains spoilers
engelbrechtjacqueline26 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Let me preface by saying I've seen the original about a thousand times. I simply love it. The reboot(which should be given the boot) is truly jaw-dropping in how terrible it is and how off the reservation it went. I'm all for creative liberties but come on? The sub plots are all over the place and it has been turned into a musical!
Many of the memorable or iconic moments from the original lack the "oomph" or emotion from the original.
Let's start with our leading lady. I like Abigail Breslin. I think she is a great actress but she is no Baby! The Baby of the original was spunky and feisty, this one though, not so much. She came across as frumpy, hello wardrobe people - where were you?, didn't quite pull off the brainy vibe and she had ZERO chemistry with her leading man. And she cannot dance. It was stiff, stilted and awkward at best.Our leading man, Colt Prattes? Never heard of him and now I know why. There was no suave to him. No Patrick Swayze/Johnny Castle innate broody sex appeal. It's like my cat bringing me a dead mouse. I'll look at it but I ain't touching it!
Their chemistry is unbelievable and seems forced 90% of the time. The iconic love moments feel watered down and I simply couldn't feel anything for the characters who I love so much in the original. The original features original songs from the era. Almost all of the music has been covered by another artist and Johnny doing a live rendition of Love Man? Just no. No. NO. No.
The we have the parents fighting and making up, talking about divorce,singing at pianos etc. What?
The movie ends 12 years in the future with Baby attending a Broadway play based on a book she wrote about that summer. She and Johnny aren't together and she's married to someone else. Where is the happily ever after EVERYONE was rooting for in the original? Seriously. That alone made this a total bomb in my book. I forced myself to finish this movie. The best part? The ending. My advice? Stick with the original folks. It's as close to perfect as you'll ever get!
Many of the memorable or iconic moments from the original lack the "oomph" or emotion from the original.
Let's start with our leading lady. I like Abigail Breslin. I think she is a great actress but she is no Baby! The Baby of the original was spunky and feisty, this one though, not so much. She came across as frumpy, hello wardrobe people - where were you?, didn't quite pull off the brainy vibe and she had ZERO chemistry with her leading man. And she cannot dance. It was stiff, stilted and awkward at best.Our leading man, Colt Prattes? Never heard of him and now I know why. There was no suave to him. No Patrick Swayze/Johnny Castle innate broody sex appeal. It's like my cat bringing me a dead mouse. I'll look at it but I ain't touching it!
Their chemistry is unbelievable and seems forced 90% of the time. The iconic love moments feel watered down and I simply couldn't feel anything for the characters who I love so much in the original. The original features original songs from the era. Almost all of the music has been covered by another artist and Johnny doing a live rendition of Love Man? Just no. No. NO. No.
The we have the parents fighting and making up, talking about divorce,singing at pianos etc. What?
The movie ends 12 years in the future with Baby attending a Broadway play based on a book she wrote about that summer. She and Johnny aren't together and she's married to someone else. Where is the happily ever after EVERYONE was rooting for in the original? Seriously. That alone made this a total bomb in my book. I forced myself to finish this movie. The best part? The ending. My advice? Stick with the original folks. It's as close to perfect as you'll ever get!
One of the most tragic remake-mistakes
fidgee25 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
There are certainly some great performers in the cast, I won't deny that, but this remake just failed to connect on more levels than I can list. They tried to throw in some of the iconic lines, but this cast never landed them. (I hoped they could at least hit on the "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" line, but even that was forced and fell flat.) I loved the original--and I'll be the first to admit, I did not think they should remake this film, but out of respect for the original cast and the story, I really did try to like it....which makes it even more disappointing. Now I'm running to grab my copy of the original to try to get the memory of what I just watched out of my head!
If anyone in Hollywood cares, PLEASE--stop ruining the classic films by trying to cash in on them again! What's next? Remaking Gone With the Wind with Kim Kardashian as Scarlett? You really can't re-capture their magic, regardless who you cast or how flashy you make it.
If anyone in Hollywood cares, PLEASE--stop ruining the classic films by trying to cash in on them again! What's next? Remaking Gone With the Wind with Kim Kardashian as Scarlett? You really can't re-capture their magic, regardless who you cast or how flashy you make it.
3 hours I can never get back....
Misskitty6025 May 2017
I'll put it to you this way...I have been on IMDb for many, many years and THIS is my first review because I am compelled to ware people to "Save yourselves!" One of the worst remakes I have ever seen. The acting , lip-syncing and dancing were all terrible. The iconic ending saw soo bad especially when everybody was trying to sing. It was just ridiculous.
Dirty Dancing? More like Stiff as a Board.
emmajordan268731 May 2017
Oh god I wish that I could say there was good things in this remake but unfortunately the bad outweighs the good. Let's start out with casting. Abaigail Breslin possibly the worst casting ever she had no chemistry with her co-star, she had absolutely no rhythm so watching her dance was a painful experience in itself and to add insult to injury I found her to be extremely annoying to watch. Colt Prattes wasn't horrible and I didn't mind his rendition of Do You Love Me but I just couldn't see the chemistry between his character and Baby with Nicole Scherzinger and Katey Sagal sure there was the chemistry that was clearly lacking with Abaigail Breslin but I could see why people were commenting that Nolan Gerard Funk would've been a better Johnny. Sarah Hyland did great with what she was given and honestly I would've preferred her as Baby. The parents were irrelevant I mean why were they even given a story line. The music was meh. I mean they destroyed She's Like The Wind but whatever. What killed me was the dancing. I mean it's called Dirty Dancing for gods sake and there was none of that. It was supposed to be great dancing culminating into an amazing end dance number and all I saw was something truly cringe worthy. Nothing but swaying, a few basic side to side steps and some twirls thrown in for effect. It was nothing but a disappointment and don't get me started on that ending lord what a waste. So that's 2 hours I'll never get back. So do yourself a favor you wanna watch Dirty Dancing watch the original because this will suck out your soul and leave you ranting at what they've done to such an amazing film. If I could rate this a zero I would. A 1 is being generous.
Waste of time
alvinak926 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This must be a parody! Otherwise I can't explain the existence of this film. They wrote off memorable lines. The acting was dreadful. he choreography non existing and don't get me started on the character development. They focused too much on secondary characters and they missed the point. Don't waste your time people. Go watch the original.
Dirty Dancing 2017
trygod-3816324 May 2017
I am watching the new version of Dirty Dancing. What a DUD ! The casting is all wrong. The main guy looks like he should be in the movie "Grease", He cannot even come close to having the moves and expressions like Patrick Swayze did. The girl is too chubby and hasn't got the "hair" like Jennifer Grey or the smooth moves either! She looks stiff. The original was one that is still loved by so many people and no remake can ever hold ones attention like the first one. This is NO tribute to Patrick...He would be insulted if he were alive to see it. RIP Patrick. You and Jennifer were "Dirty Dancing"...the look, the dancing, even the music which is wrong in the remake. I can't even give this movie a single star. Sorry Jennifer...they really screwed this up! Should have been left alone!
awful awful awful
kjckb25 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This was an awful remake! AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL!! They should never have even tried to remake it. The classic original was enough for us to enjoy for a lifetime. I agree with the prior reviews that the dancing in here was very awkward and no where near as hot and spicy as the dancing in the original. I do like Abigail Breslin, but not as Baby Houseman. She does not have the moves at all and appears very awkward when she dances. I think they are trying to be all politically correct by not casting a skinny girl for the part this time, but the part at least needs someone who it not awkward and can dance with heat and spice. As for the ending in the last few minutes when it suddenly jumps to the future and we see that Johnny and Baby do not get together after all, WHY WHY WHY did they have to do this. It's a major slap in the face to all of us audience members who sat through the whole three hours of their awkward remake just to see that ending! HIGHLY DISAPPOINTING!!!
I thought I was in a nightmare
evanvorous26 May 2017
I maybe watched 10-15 minutes of this and thought I was in hell. The acting left nothing to be desired. I couldn't believe I even sat as long as I did watching this. Do yourself a favor and watch the original Dirty Dancing, you will see more magic and chemistry. This version had 0 chemistry. I can't believe Katy Segal even agreed to be in this one.
Cringeworthy scenes...watch at your own risk
musicalfreakgurl15 September 2019
Did they do justice to the original.
Heck NO!
Was it terrible?
Pretty much!
Did I finish the whole movie?
Yeah. (So sue me)
But . . .
Despite this movies cringeworthy scenes I kept watching just to see what would happen. And the changes they made had me on the fence. While I liked the expansion of the family dynamic and a few added characters, it still was horrid.
I didn't feel any chemistry between the leads. It was like watching nails scratch a chalkboard.
And then that ending!?
I mean I get it, sort of. But really what was the point? I understand the realism that they were going for but when you do that to icon characters.
You got backlash. Right? Anyway, watch at your own risk.
Heck NO!
Was it terrible?
Pretty much!
Did I finish the whole movie?
Yeah. (So sue me)
But . . .
Despite this movies cringeworthy scenes I kept watching just to see what would happen. And the changes they made had me on the fence. While I liked the expansion of the family dynamic and a few added characters, it still was horrid.
I didn't feel any chemistry between the leads. It was like watching nails scratch a chalkboard.
And then that ending!?
I mean I get it, sort of. But really what was the point? I understand the realism that they were going for but when you do that to icon characters.
You got backlash. Right? Anyway, watch at your own risk.
I love both the original and the remake!!
courtneynickelhoover19 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
First off I know this movie is 4 years old and it is 2021.
Second so many people are saying this movie is complete crap or if you loved the original don't watch and I disagree. Everyone is allowed an opinion and are allowed there reasons for their opinion.
Here is why I disagree first off so many people say Abigail Breslin is too "chubby or fat" for the role of baby, we live in a not only a world, but a society where women have curves and curves come in all sorts, that is a part of being a woman. Second they say the clothes she is wearing are all wrong, or they don't match the original, I am not saying that is not true but the clothes she is wearing in the movie don't take away from the story being told and the thing is characters are supposed to be living in 1963 the style of a lot of the pants and shirts that "baby" is wearing are more true to that than 1987 styled clothing Jennifer grey wore in the original. Third, when I first watched the original movie and saw how Patrick Swayze face showed his age and then I look at Jennifer and I know she was about 26 years old when they made this and her character is supposed to be this 17 or 18 year old girl and she looks like she is a 17 year old and Patrick Swayze looks a lot older than the supposed 25 his character is. This made me feel a little uneasy when I first watched this, but then again Hollywood has a way having older actors play younger characters who can pull off the character and have what they want in mind for this character and what they want, I get it and he did an amazing, wonderful and fantastic job as Johnny Castle. In this newer version Abigail looks like an 18 year old which is what age her character is and Colt who plays Johnny who is supposed to be 25 looks 25 which I appreciated in this version. So many people dislike that this was musical, I personally appreciated the musical aspect to the movie, I think what was missing it was light on the musical because some songs they are singing and others it is the music for the scene that is happening. To me the dancing for the character not to have any rhythm whatsoever like in the first scene where she was dancing to the end and can not only dance she dances well I will say that aspect stays true to the story. A lot of people also complain that the "sizzle", and the "heat" are missing from the characters is missing, I will say it doesn't make you think to yourself "get a room you too" but is it is has the same sweet innocent kind of crush that the original "baby" had for Johnny. For the most part but you can see that "baby" has a crush on Johnny and the part where Johnny sees baby in the green dress he is like that stereotypical whoa she is beautiful moment. It heats up the second time they "sleep" together. They had the iconic practice the lift montage to the move and it obviously was in two different places and two different times of day but it also added to the movie and their interaction with each other. To me the secondary characters having a little more light shined on them and what is happening in the movie added to the movie and emotion to what was going on in the story, for instance in the original movie the mom said baby must have got the moves from her because she was a dancer when she was younger to me that was a throw in line and where this movie the mom shows off her ability to sing and sings the song that she and the dad danced to when they first met that added to what was going on and then later the dad also knows how to sing and plays the piano when he went to the dance studio and sang the same song that the mom sang. It also gives explanation to why the older sister has the ability to sing but also a musical interest and wants to be in the talent show and is in the talent show. The storyline of penny and the waiter is the same, and how baby's dad doesn't like Johnny because of the assumption is he was the baby's father that penny had aborted and then needed medical help from the dad later. There is even more emotional depth to the conversations between the dad and baby and what is going in the story. In the first dancing scene of baby and her family at the resort and how baby mentions her older sister has an admirer in Marco the piano player was total foreshadowing to how the older sister learned to play the ukulele from him but also went to him for help looking for her sister and in the end talent show was singing with him and not to mention this is supposed to be in 1963 in America to me that is even more a big deal with if you look in history and what was going on in the 1960s for not only black Americans but black American musicians and it is the golden age of music. But not only that but Marco is the complete opposite of the supposed "dream" guy that the fathers would want for their girls in the case of Robbie, because Robbie had ill intentions towards the sister and Marco was a complete gentleman to Lisa. Yes I will say the iconic last dance did happen and baby was wearing a white dress and Johnny in the original was wearing all black and in the remake he is wearing a white shirt and blue jeans and I kind of get what some people were saying about how he looks like he wants to be in grease but the end where he says nobody puts baby in a corner and takes her up there to sing and dance a long with everyone else in the movie and then how the mom and dad joined in, them all actually singing the song not just lip-synced the words to the music like they were in the original it added to the dance scene. The last lift in the dance it happened and it was good.
I have said my peace and what I needed to say. It was good story and movie overall and there are differences and those differences make me love and appreciate both movies.
Second so many people are saying this movie is complete crap or if you loved the original don't watch and I disagree. Everyone is allowed an opinion and are allowed there reasons for their opinion.
Here is why I disagree first off so many people say Abigail Breslin is too "chubby or fat" for the role of baby, we live in a not only a world, but a society where women have curves and curves come in all sorts, that is a part of being a woman. Second they say the clothes she is wearing are all wrong, or they don't match the original, I am not saying that is not true but the clothes she is wearing in the movie don't take away from the story being told and the thing is characters are supposed to be living in 1963 the style of a lot of the pants and shirts that "baby" is wearing are more true to that than 1987 styled clothing Jennifer grey wore in the original. Third, when I first watched the original movie and saw how Patrick Swayze face showed his age and then I look at Jennifer and I know she was about 26 years old when they made this and her character is supposed to be this 17 or 18 year old girl and she looks like she is a 17 year old and Patrick Swayze looks a lot older than the supposed 25 his character is. This made me feel a little uneasy when I first watched this, but then again Hollywood has a way having older actors play younger characters who can pull off the character and have what they want in mind for this character and what they want, I get it and he did an amazing, wonderful and fantastic job as Johnny Castle. In this newer version Abigail looks like an 18 year old which is what age her character is and Colt who plays Johnny who is supposed to be 25 looks 25 which I appreciated in this version. So many people dislike that this was musical, I personally appreciated the musical aspect to the movie, I think what was missing it was light on the musical because some songs they are singing and others it is the music for the scene that is happening. To me the dancing for the character not to have any rhythm whatsoever like in the first scene where she was dancing to the end and can not only dance she dances well I will say that aspect stays true to the story. A lot of people also complain that the "sizzle", and the "heat" are missing from the characters is missing, I will say it doesn't make you think to yourself "get a room you too" but is it is has the same sweet innocent kind of crush that the original "baby" had for Johnny. For the most part but you can see that "baby" has a crush on Johnny and the part where Johnny sees baby in the green dress he is like that stereotypical whoa she is beautiful moment. It heats up the second time they "sleep" together. They had the iconic practice the lift montage to the move and it obviously was in two different places and two different times of day but it also added to the movie and their interaction with each other. To me the secondary characters having a little more light shined on them and what is happening in the movie added to the movie and emotion to what was going on in the story, for instance in the original movie the mom said baby must have got the moves from her because she was a dancer when she was younger to me that was a throw in line and where this movie the mom shows off her ability to sing and sings the song that she and the dad danced to when they first met that added to what was going on and then later the dad also knows how to sing and plays the piano when he went to the dance studio and sang the same song that the mom sang. It also gives explanation to why the older sister has the ability to sing but also a musical interest and wants to be in the talent show and is in the talent show. The storyline of penny and the waiter is the same, and how baby's dad doesn't like Johnny because of the assumption is he was the baby's father that penny had aborted and then needed medical help from the dad later. There is even more emotional depth to the conversations between the dad and baby and what is going in the story. In the first dancing scene of baby and her family at the resort and how baby mentions her older sister has an admirer in Marco the piano player was total foreshadowing to how the older sister learned to play the ukulele from him but also went to him for help looking for her sister and in the end talent show was singing with him and not to mention this is supposed to be in 1963 in America to me that is even more a big deal with if you look in history and what was going on in the 1960s for not only black Americans but black American musicians and it is the golden age of music. But not only that but Marco is the complete opposite of the supposed "dream" guy that the fathers would want for their girls in the case of Robbie, because Robbie had ill intentions towards the sister and Marco was a complete gentleman to Lisa. Yes I will say the iconic last dance did happen and baby was wearing a white dress and Johnny in the original was wearing all black and in the remake he is wearing a white shirt and blue jeans and I kind of get what some people were saying about how he looks like he wants to be in grease but the end where he says nobody puts baby in a corner and takes her up there to sing and dance a long with everyone else in the movie and then how the mom and dad joined in, them all actually singing the song not just lip-synced the words to the music like they were in the original it added to the dance scene. The last lift in the dance it happened and it was good.
I have said my peace and what I needed to say. It was good story and movie overall and there are differences and those differences make me love and appreciate both movies.
Yes it has its problems, however
jac_w7 October 2018
I don't think it's as bad as most of the reviews on here would have you believe. I agree about Abigail Breslin, I don't think she was the right choice for the role of Baby and she absolutely should have been a better dancer by the end of the film than what she was - most of the dance scenes seem like Colt was putting in all the work and she's just standing there! Plus the original Baby was strong willed and feisty, this version seems really watered down (but that's probably more the writing than Abigail's fault).
Colt and Abigail weren't believable as a couple however I liked Colt's version of Johnny. I know, it's almost sacrilidge to criticise the original however I never liked how the original Johnny cared so much about what Baby's dad thought of him. Colt plays him like he's a bit more defiant.
I love that they fleshed out the characters of the other family members and actually gave them storylines. It was a summer which changed all their lives, not just Baby and Johnny's. plus I love the addition of Marco's character.
I thought the singing was a good addition too (who doesn't sing along to those songs!) There's no point making a carbon copy remake of the original and thought it felt natural to have the characters sing as well as dance.
Colt and Abigail weren't believable as a couple however I liked Colt's version of Johnny. I know, it's almost sacrilidge to criticise the original however I never liked how the original Johnny cared so much about what Baby's dad thought of him. Colt plays him like he's a bit more defiant.
I love that they fleshed out the characters of the other family members and actually gave them storylines. It was a summer which changed all their lives, not just Baby and Johnny's. plus I love the addition of Marco's character.
I thought the singing was a good addition too (who doesn't sing along to those songs!) There's no point making a carbon copy remake of the original and thought it felt natural to have the characters sing as well as dance.
Epic Disaster
kz917-130 May 2017
They took a beloved classic and bloated it to three hours by adding story lines that weren't necessary and cutting others that were beloved. They updated and re-imagined all the songs making the characters sing them. I was either laughing or cringing the entire movie. Poor Abigail Breslin, this was not the role for her, her portrayal of Baby had all the personality of a wet dish mop. Sadly she had little to no chemistry with Colt Prattes (Johnny Castle). I don't know if it was the costuming or the undergarments, but I was distracted by Baby's chest region just about every time she was on screen. You couldn't not see them. Sarah Hyland cast as Baby's sister Lisa may have been a better choice for Baby. Bless their hearts they tried - but they epically failed. It took watching the original three times to rinse this version from my mind.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
