Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
Detroit Free Press:
Asks us to return to the days of yesteryear, when we would accept Cary Grant as a country bumpkin and Marilyn Monroe as an ugly duckling. These days, that's asking too much.
Goes too far in its slapstick efforts to please mainstream audiences, but there's no denying the genuine appeal of -- and I can't believe I'm actually writing this -- Richard Gere and ballroom dancing.
The movie tries hard to duplicate the original's mood and story, but, like Gere or Lopez, is too much of a visual knockout to rope us in.
This mildly entertaining bauble will disappear from your memory even before you've dislodged the last popcorn husks from your back teeth.
San Francisco Chronicle:
Where the original soared, the new version hugs the ground. It's like the difference between Fred Astaire's dancing and Richard Gere's.
Largely forgettable because the central love story, between a married couple played by Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon, has nary a spark.
Gere is a pleasure, smiling and spinning and high-fiving his two classmates -- played by Bobby Cannavale and Omar Miller -- and the movie is happy and extremely likable.
Los Angeles Times:
A sleek Hollywood crowd-pleaser, more movie than art film, but its makers have wisely stuck not only to the spirit but often even to the letter of the original.
Paul Clinton (CNN.com),
Its missteps turn the delicate footwork of the original into a clunky thud.
Feels engineered the way women's magazines too often do: to deliver the feel-good without burdening us with too much feeling or thought.
Dallas Morning News:
A polished, feel-good movie that will be most appreciated by those who went back for second helpings of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
An unwieldy mess that gives every impression of having been made under a mandate to fill the Miramax crowd-pleaser slot.
This version of Shall We Dance? tosses circumspection out of the window, milking every ounce of sentimentality, pathos and thrift-shop idiosyncrasy from the story line.
A pleasant, uncomplicated, adult night out -- an event nearly as rare as a new romantic Hollywood musical.
New York Observer:
Under the clunky direction of Peter Chelsom, while forced to mouth inane dialogue by Audrey Wells ... a swell bunch of troupers get mangled in a monsoon of cliches.
New York Times:
Shall We Dance?, an Americanization of a popular 1996 Japanese film, is an old-fashioned feel-good fantasy that piles on the euphoria.
The central idea -- that losing yourself in a small, private world can help you to better engage the larger world -- isn't lost in translation.
The entire feature feels poorly motivated and low on energy. There's clearly something missing.
There are so many appealing performers in Shall We Dance? that it's a crime the director, Peter Chelsom, and the screenwriter, Audrey Wells, haven't given them more to do.
Minneapolis Star Tribune:
The filmmakers aren't afraid to lay on the schmaltz, especially at the end, but it never gets so heavy that Shall We Dance? doesn't step lively.
The original remains the standard, and it's a far deeper work, but this paint-by-numbers project manages to get by on its good humour and undeniably entertaining ensemble cast.
Offers attractive, inoffensive characters and a smattering of broad laughs, but it fails to use its potential to explore weightier themes such as John's mid-life crisis.
Turns a sweet, lilting story into a clunky, cliched and tedious movie sitcom.
It's shamelessly direct in its emotional targeting, but in a gentle, inoffensive way that will appeal to viewers who prefer the old storytelling formulas to the more sensationalistic contemporary approach.
Exemplifies its distributor at its most blatantly opportunistic -- plundering the recycling bin for a no-brainer cash-in.
Takes a small, exquisite Japanese movie and turns it into a big, stupid American movie. Still, it must be said that as glossy and overproduced as the thing is, it's a good Big Stupid American movie.