Still Star-Crossed

:

Season 1
  • Network: ABC
  • Series Premiere Date: May 29, 2017
User Score
2.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 19 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 19
  3. Negative: 14 out of 19
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On

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. JennetP
    May 30, 2017
    1
    Wow, this show is so bad it's . . . nope, can't go there. This is a series based, not on "Romeo & Juliet," but on a bad photocopy of the Cliffs Notes of "Romeo & Juliet." Familiar characters race through more than 3 acts of the play at breakneck speed. Here's Romeo's death scene.

    ROMEO: OMG, there's Paris. [stabs him] OMG there's Juliet's corpse. [drinks poison] Thus, with a kiss,    Wow, this show is so bad it's . . . nope, can't go there. This is a series based, not on "Romeo & Juliet," but on a bad photocopy of the Cliffs Notes of "Romeo & Juliet." Familiar characters race through more than 3 acts of the play at breakneck speed. Here's Romeo's death scene.

    ROMEO: OMG, there's Paris. [stabs him] OMG there's Juliet's corpse. [drinks poison] Thus, with a kiss, [keels over] I die. [dies]

    The familiar stuff needs to race by so that some secondary characters we never cared about, like Benvolio, and some repurposed or completely made-up characters can recite their entire histories in a perfect illustration of the "as you know, Bob" dialogue that your creative writing teacher told you to avoid. Or can "remember" it in flashbacks that "echo" other characters' histories. Horrible writing that drags down everything else. I can't even tell if the actors can act, though I'm guessing not so much based on the accents.

    Then there's the fake Shakespearean language, because, you know, Shakespeare didn't write enough of the stuff himself, so Hackney V. Skriptwriter had to make up the deficit. Tip for Hackney: hire one of the 3,000 unemployed English Ph.Ds in California. Good state schools mean plenty of out-of-work academics, forsooth!

    The costumes are okay but the effect is ruined by the men's super-short hair. With hair that anachronistic, the actors might as well wear space suits or loincloths. The CGI Verona is the best thing about the show. That's where my one point came from.

    What's sad is that the show's premise is interesting and could have yielded something watchable. I liked the racial mix of the actors, but if ABC really wanted to do something thoughtful with race (rather than just advertise its diversity) it could have made the Capulets black and the Montagues white--or vice versa. Years ago, I saw a "Troilus and Cressida" that did that with the Trojans and the Greeks, and the division was both powerful and disconcerting, forcing the audience to confront uncomfortable questions. But that would be an idea, and this series is definitely not into ideas.

    In short, very bad. I love historical shows, and a series has to be pretty terrible before I'll abandon it (I'm looking at you, Reign), but this one became unwatchable right away. I was really surprised by the critics' aggregate score.    … Expand
  2. PhilipZweig
    Jun 1, 2017
    3
    As a lover of Romeo & Juliet, this diversion is a major dark disappoint. R & J was about epiphany and hope, about people learning from mistakes after a huge shock and being made better. These characters, lacking any insight, are basically hopeless. The best thing would be for a neighboring city to invade and massacre both families as Mercutio would've wanted.
    And why did these writers    As a lover of Romeo & Juliet, this diversion is a major dark disappoint. R & J was about epiphany and hope, about people learning from mistakes after a huge shock and being made better. These characters, lacking any insight, are basically hopeless. The best thing would be for a neighboring city to invade and massacre both families as Mercutio would've wanted.
    And why did these writers choose to make Tybolt surprised and violently angry to see Montagues at Escalus' party when he knew they'd be there? Why didn't Friar Lawrence anticipate Romeo might be hard to find with a death sentence on his head? And wouldn't one think that Count Paris' family might come looking for him?
    Such a waste of good acting!    … Expand
  3. hmayer
    Jun 8, 2017
    0
    just another lame attempt at forcing diversity were it doesn't belong.Next try a transgender Romeo & Juliet or maybe Romeo & Romeo.Not for mainstream or prime-time.The other reviews are to politically correct to come out and say it.
  4. sawthesign
    Oct 25, 2017
    8
    ABC and Shonda Rhimes made a daring choice to cast one of the Bard's most famous plays with predominately people of color. This choice is probably one of the things that lead to it's downfall, but I still applaud Shondaland for trying anyway. This is one of the very few instances of colorblind casting that I've seen, and it was done respectfully. So respectfully, in fact, that I can'tABC and Shonda Rhimes made a daring choice to cast one of the Bard's most famous plays with predominately people of color. This choice is probably one of the things that lead to it's downfall, but I still applaud Shondaland for trying anyway. This is one of the very few instances of colorblind casting that I've seen, and it was done respectfully. So respectfully, in fact, that I can't really see why people would have such a problem with it unless they themselves just do not like seeing people of color on TV, but I digress!

    The show did take quite a bit to really dig into the story, which was a disappointment. I'm sure if the action had started a bit earlier, or even if they hadn't smashed the entire story of Romeo and Juliet into 30 minutes, the show could have been saved. I understand why they made these decisions, though. And, seeing as the show was harshly cancelled after a meager 3 episodes, it's clear that people did not want to give the show a chance from the start. Why? Well, again, I think we all know.

    The costume design was absolutely beautiful! The acting had heart and the romance was just beginning to pick up by the end of the season. Characters like Isabella will stay with me always, and it's very sad that her story (of a lesbian princess during the Renaissance!) was cut short right as it was introduced.

    Lashawna Lynch's performance was a favorite--her acting was superb and I hope she stays in the business. Either that, or she should head over to the Globe theater right away! She was made for Shakespeare.

    The show was not perfect. The pacing was off and scene transitions were sometimes far too rushed. But, a lot of these more glaring issues did not come about until a little later in the season, long after the show's cancellation was announced. So, as I've said, there must have been some sort of agenda behind ending the show at the third episode. Some of the reviews I've read indicate that this just might be the case.

    As a self-proclaimed Shakespeare nut, I personally liked it. Unfortunately, some of the more staunch traditionalists did not. I won't say it's because of race but...again, just look at the reviews.    … Expand
  5. DavidDaniel
    Dec 25, 2017
    3
    Still Star-Crossed is one the worst shows that premiered in 2017, if not the worst. The pilot and the last episode are a mess like I've never seen before.The rest of the episodes although not as bad are not good either. This could have been epic or at least watchable. I don't know why ABC order this in the first place. It's a waste of money. Anyway, the less said, the better.

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 13 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 13
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 13
  3. Negative: 2 out of 13
  1. The Salt Lake Tribune
    Reviewed by: Scott D. Pierce
    May 30, 2017
    30
    It's lavish, multi-racial and a bit of a confusing mess.
    Read full review
  2. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Neil Genzlinger
    May 30, 2017
    50
    Despite the vast population of figures from the play, this isn’t a show aimed at Shakespeare scholars; a mere passing acquaintance with “Romeo and Juliet” will do. It’s also not “Shakespeare in Love”; it won’t dazzle you with quick references, wittily deployed Shakespearean lines and so on.
    Read full review
  3. Vox.com
    Reviewed by: Constance Grady
    May 30, 2017
    50
    It all chugs along under the basic idea that you don’t need to have too many feelings about what’s actually happening onscreen as long as everything is beautiful to look at--until the final two minutes of the pilot, when two estranged lovers meet in an empty room.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »