Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Masayuki Suo's Shall We Dance? became a favorite of moviegoers around the world when it opened in 1996. Thus, as they have done with so many acclaimed foreign films, American filmmakers have tried adapting it for U.S. audiences and come up with a version that is vastly inferior.

Richard Gere stars as John Clark, a father and a husband who finds his life has gone stale. He's lacking passion for anything, including his marriage. When he sees a beautiful woman (Jennifer Lopez) staring sadly out of a dance studio window, he's lured to set foot on the dance floor for the first time. There, he discovers that her name is Paulina, and she's an instructor with a troubled past. Motivated by his weaknesses, he enrolls in the class just to be near her. At home, his wife (Susan Sarandon) and daughter (Tamara Hope) grow suspicious of his long evening absences, while he steps carefully around the floor with his classmates (including Stanley Tucci, Bobby Cannavale, and Omar Miller).

And so the gear wheels of the plot begin to turn, awkwardly and, at times, predictably. Will John give in to his temptation and run off with the sexy instructor? Will he compete in the ballroom dance championships? Will his wife find out about his new obsession? Is his marriage doomed?

While Peter Chelsom's version of the film is strikingly different in tone and pace than the original, it has charms all its own, especially in the chemistry of the ensemble cast. But while it earns some cheers and some laughs, it remains a comedy trifle, one that tries too hard to please us. The cast attempt to merge the subtle flourishes of the original with the flamboyant, exaggerated comedy of Strictly Ballroom, and they frequently lose their balance; the comedy feels forced and falls flat. Still, when the dancers strut their stuff—especially in a much-anticipated, after-hours practice between John and Paulina—the movie musters enough magic to keep us engaged. Gere gives a winning, low-key performance, and Lopez is convincing (although she has yet to match her strong work in Out of Sight). Fortunately, the film can boast of having a strong moral center, one that honors marriage more than any commercial film in recent memory.

Camerin Courtney (Christianity Today Movies) says it's "simply a fun romantic comedy." But she concludes, "The original is classier, deeper, more poignant. Find it. Rent it. You'll love it." She points out that Chelsom's remake "eventually packs a refreshingly pro-marriage message" in spite of some "gratuitous," revealing costumes and glimpses of "dirty dancing."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says the screenwriter "can't translate what is essentially a Japanese identity crisis into American terms. Fans of the original will find the remake pointlessly dumbed down and at times needlessly crass." Still, he concludes that the movie "manages to be fitfully entertaining and ultimately even charming. How often does a Hollywood romantic comedy celebrate romance between a middle-aged couple in a longtime marriage?"

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, "Although the American remake does not reach the joyous heights of the foreign film, it remains a delightful experience. For those familiar with the original film, it make take a bit longer to be drawn into the remake and stop making comparisons, but eventually the actors and director Peter Chelsom win out and win us over with a breezy, lightweight and happy little movie all their own."

Andrew Coffin (World) writes, "The first two-thirds of Dance have the breezy feel of a successfully polished romantic comedy … but there's an uneasy undercurrent that results from the married John's excessive interest in Paulina. The longer the film runs, the more the problematic this becomes—it's a serious, damaging choice, if made, that doesn't fit with the light tone." Coffin is pleased with the film's unconventionally moral conclusion, but dismayed by the final moments, which are "all over the map. Restraint, many in Hollywood fail to realize, can be a virtue."

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

October (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48