Melrose Place : Season 1

  • Network: The CW
  • Series Premiere Date: Sep 8, 2009

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 24
  2. Negative: 4 out of 24

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. It does, however, wisely retain some of the elements that worked in the original, like characters who are interesting without being deep. We watch them because of what they do, not because we think there's a lot there.
  2. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    At this point, about all one can definitively say is whether the cast has potential (they do) and the situations are involving (they aren’t, unless you’re predisposed to such nonsense). On the plus side, the producers pay sly homage to the program’s roots without appearing beholden to it, indicating that the show will have the latitude to evolve into its own entity.
  3. 50
    How interested will viewers be in its fictional scandals when real life offers much more sensational examples of bad behavior?
  4. No one appearing on Melrose Place 2.0 is nearly that dreadful, and the one-liners that remind us that we are not watching the television of a historic golden age retain the zesty camp of the series’s first iteration.
  5. 50
    Over all, the show has a little something, but it doesn’t have outstanding curb appeal, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a foreclosure notice in the window sooner rather than later.
  6. If only it were possible to care, even the least little bit, who did what and why and what will happen next. But as of the end of Episode 2, it just isn't.
  7. 40
    The CW, having exhausted every bit of its creative energy on The Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll, is now simply remaking Fox's old prime-time soap lineup one by one. And the garden apartment complex at No. 4616, though filled with a new collection of 20-something drama queens, is the same vortex of hyperkinetic hormones, ambition and criminality that it always was.
  8. Melrose does a better job integrating its two casts, and it embraces what it is: a trashy remake of one of the most memorably trashy hits in primetime history. It's still not good, mind you, but it's more honest and enthusiastic about its badness, you know?
  9. 50
    Trouble is, very few of the show's other cast members make much of an impression, aside from Cassidy and Stephanie Jacobsen, whose medical-student plot is lifted straight from the Soap 101 handbook.
  10. 60
    Yes, there’s much that’s awful here, as there always was--some laughably bad acting, portentous flashbacks telegraphed so obviously you expect the screen to do one of those wiggly dissolves, writing that won’t cause Matthew Weiner (or his kids) any sleepless nights--and yet there’s an enjoyably lurid energy to this place that makes it only about 1,000 times more instantly watchable than last season’s dreary redo of 90210.
  11. Reviewed by: James Poniewozik
    It's competent. It also seems a little familiar and unnecessary.
  12. How much you'll actually care about any of them may decide whether you're ready to embrace the new Melrose Place.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 28 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 11
  2. Negative: 5 out of 11
  1. Mar 25, 2016
    It had two good things going for it: the name of the show, and the return of some of the original's great characters, most notably AmandaIt had two good things going for it: the name of the show, and the return of some of the original's great characters, most notably Amanda Woodward. What went wrong? Everything, really. I just learned the show-runners used to be with Smallville and they were looking to target the same demographic - it's on CW so that's a no-brainer. The problem with that though, the show comes right after the reboot of 90210 which pretty much was all about the same thing. If that wasn't bad enough, their targeted audience was also out partying instead of staying in to watch the show. The writing wasn't bad per se, but it really took a while for things to build up. The casting also didn't help. Props for the diversity, but some of the acting were really bad. At best, it was an okay effort. You're really just sticking to see which of the original casts they were able to convince to come on. Although that match-up between Ella and Amanda at the finale showed promise, it was sad the ratings failed to convince the powers-that-be to give it another chance. Full Review »
  2. Sep 29, 2012
    For me, the whole Melrose Place reboot idea is not working because The CW is used to be known for shows like Smallville and Gossip Girl, but IFor me, the whole Melrose Place reboot idea is not working because The CW is used to be known for shows like Smallville and Gossip Girl, but I certainly don't watch the network no more. With Aaron Spelling gone, there's no telling where a huge cult classic will reboot. But the new "Melrose Place" has a lot of bad acting, bland storylines, a terrible excuse for a perfect '90s geek magnet. I mean, "Melrose Place" was the epidemy of FOX on Monday nights. After ending 7 seasons, I might've watched all of the episodes on DVD. It was the "90210" of all time. I don't think the CW will be long as a company, but I want the old WB and UPN back. Full Review »
  3. CristinaG
    Oct 5, 2009
    I've watched three episodes so far and find it entertaining.