Critics’ reviews

Off Campus (2026)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 67: 5 positive, 2 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Off Campus

67
Positive
5
Mixed
2
Negative
1

Most critics like it, though few pretend it is more than soapy comfort viewing. Five of the eight reviews are positive, and the praise gathers in the same places: the chemistry between the leads, Ella Bright and Belmont Cameli, the easy camaraderie among the hockey players, and the care with which the series handles consent, sexual assault and domestic violence, subjects its frat-house setting does not promise.

The reservations gather too. Several reviews find the dialogue choppy, the tone uneven and the plot predictable, and more than one measures it against Heated Rivalry and finds it less steamy and lower in stakes. The spread is wide: four-star notices from Radio Times and The Guardian at one end, a D+ from The AV Club at the other, which calls the direction lifeless and the acting bad. Vulture also faults the lead performances, which sets both against the majority who find the pairing the show’s chief pleasure.

Radio Times
11 May 2026 · ★★★★ · David Craig
80

The critic praises the charming romance and emotional maturity of the frat bros, noting its blend of smut, silliness, and sensitivity to serious topics like rape and domestic violence, making it bingeable like a frat bro Bridgerton.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
13 May 2026 · ★★★★
80

The critic calls it slick, soapy, spicy, high-class lovable nonsense and recommends it as soothing, moreish trash TV for fans of hot twentysomethings and hockey. They single out the lovely chemistry between the leads and the genuine wit, warmth, and graceful handling of traumatic backstories for praise.

Read the full review →
Variety
11 May 2026 · Aramide Tinubu
70*

The critic finds it a solid, predictable YA romance with lovely chemistry and good handling of consent and friendships, though dialogue can be choppy and nudity excessive in places; it offers Gen Z voices without reinventing the wheel.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
12 May 2026 · Angie Han
60*

The critic sees modest pleasures in the sweet, trope-filled romance with good chemistry and handling of backstories, but criticizes tonal shifts, clunky dialogue, and less steam than comparisons.

Read the full review →
Vulture
19 May 2026
60*

The critic describes it as an imperfect 'first pancake' attempt at a straight hockey rom-com—fun and wholesome with flashes of the genre's appeal, but scattered, tonally confused, overstuffed, and let down by weak lead performances and deflated tension. It praises the approachable handling of sexuality and trauma.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
12 May 2026 · D+ · Christina Izzo
43

The critic finds the series tepid, corny, and not steamy enough compared to Heated Rivalry, hampered by lifeless direction, bad acting, and an algorithm-driven feel with graphic sex scenes that fail to land. It misses the mark overall but notes stronger chemistry in the supporting cast for a potential season two.

Read the full review →
Collider
11 May 2026 · 8/10 · Therese Lacson
80

The critic praises the adaptation for capturing the essence of the romance novels with strong chemistry between leads Ella Bright and Belmont Cameli, delivering sizzling romance and soapy drama. They single out the authentic fake-dating-to-real-feelings arc and the natural camaraderie among the male leads for praise.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
13 May 2026 · Lacy Baugher
70*

The critic says it is not as steamy or high-stakes as Heated Rivalry but succeeds as a lighter, sweeter college hockey romance with strong emotional connection, sweet chemistry, and likable supportive characters. It notes familiar tropes and some flaws like weak hockey scenes but affirms it knows how to deliver the romance.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate