“Fuller House” ran for five seasons on Netflix from 2016 to 2020. It brought back the cast of the original “Full House,” set the action in San Francisco, and tried to make grown-up versions of Stephanie, DJ and Michelle the stars of a new era. The result was a show that critics mostly found easy to watch but hard to praise.
Trailer, via Netflix.
The Setup
The show follows DJ Tanner-Fuller after her husband, Jesse, dies in a car accident. She moves back to San Francisco with her three children, DJ’s sister Stephanie and her daughter, and DJ’s mother, who helps raise the kids while DJ works as a photographer. The premise is simple: family, loss, and the everyday comedy of raising teenagers. What it delivers is less simple.
Why It Works
“Fuller House” has a few genuine strengths:
- The performances of the returning cast members, especially John Stamos as Uncle Jesse, bring warmth and chemistry to scenes that could easily feel dated.
- The setting in San Francisco gives the show a fresh visual backdrop compared to the original’s Chicago.
- The show’s handling of Jesse’s death is handled with care, giving the character’s absence weight without dragging the plot down.
These elements are enough to keep viewers engaged through the weaker stretches.
What Doesn’t Work
The problems start with the writing. Gags about puberty, technology, and social media are delivered with the timing of a sitcom built for a younger audience, not adults. Some jokes land. Many do not.
The show also leans heavily on callbacks to the original series. References to past episodes, characters, and events pile up, creating a wall of nostalgia that can feel more exhausting than entertaining. The show assumes viewers know the history of the original cast, and it rarely explains itself for those who don’t.
| Element | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Cast Chemistry | Strong, particularly Stamos and the returning leads | Dated acting style in some scenes |
| Setting | Fresh look at San Francisco | Limited variation across seasons |
| Tone | Light, family-friendly | Overly sentimental, often predictable |
| Nostalgia | Effective callbacks for fans | Hard to follow for newcomers |
Comparing the Two Shows
“Full House” ran from 1987 to 1995 and followed a similar family structure in Chicago. The comparison shows how much the formula has aged:
| Show | Era | Setting | Target Audience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full House | 1987–1995 | Chicago | Families, older teens |
| Fuller House | 2016–2020 | San Francisco | Young families, nostalgia seekers |
The new show borrows its structure nearly wholesale, which is why its weaknesses feel so familiar. The original show was built for families and older teens, while the sequel targets young families and people who remember the earlier series. That difference matters because it shapes how each show handles its subject matter.
The Final Word
“Fuller House” is not terrible. It is simply unnecessary. The original show already told its story, and this sequel adds little beyond a new city and updated jokes. The performances carry it, but the material underneath is thin.
Critics have scored the show at 3.5 out of 10. That number reflects a show that is pleasant to watch in short doses but forgettable in the long run. There is nothing here that demands a second viewing, and nothing that justifies the five-season run.
The show’s biggest flaw is its refusal to let go of the past. It is a tribute to a show that no longer exists, dressed up as a new one.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
