The Buccaneers

No wonder there's so much disdain and lack of appreciation for how people lived in the past. Stop making films about old world history as though it's today's teenagers playing dress-up. Use of current music distracts from immersing oneself in the time period.

The 1995 miniseries with Carla Gugino, Mira Sorvino, Greg Wise, Michael Kitchen and Cheri Lunghi is so much better than this drivel. Carla is wonderfully cast as is James Frain.

Learned recently that this story is loosely based on Winston Churchill's mother.

The original version is 6 episodes long and enthralling from beginning to end.

I absolutely hated this when I started watching it. It felt like a rip-off Bridgerton. And in many ways it is. It was Bridgerton but not as good. I almost stopped watching. But then something odd happened. Partway through episode two, I began to enjoy it a bit more. A storyline of sorts began to develop. Someone's said the acting was bad. It wasn't. In fact, there are some good, well-known actors in the show. What irked, initially, was probably more the fault of the director than the actors - the vacuous cheerleader type vibe, which didn't sit well with 1870s England. It was also a mistake copying Bridgerton and using a modern music score. That jarred. And where it worked in Bridgerton, it didn't here. But even so, as the story and characters (along with their secrets) developed, I found myself pretty hooked on this. Is it historically accurate? Nope. Is it slightly the wrong side of light and frothy? Yes. But it's also quite addictive. I found myself thinking about it when I wasn't watching it and wanting to get back to the characters. There's also a darkness (particularly with one character) which helps to take the edge off the fluff. It's not a long series and, by the end, I wished it had been longer. I really hope a second season is on the way.

This show is by no means bad. It had some good things going and some not so good. The characters with different personalities is nice, although some of them bothered me.

The biggest issue for me was the awful choice of music they would consistently put throughout the show. Some songs were so bad that I could just not focus on the scene itself because the music was overpowering or just completely did not fit. I'm against comparing the show to Bridgerton because I feel like they are quite different and there is not enough basis to compare, but one thing Bridgerton does amazingly is the music...they should definitely take notes.

I'm not a big fan of the love triangle, especially a love triangle where both men are friends prior. I've seen plenty of shows that have done this exact trope so I don't find it as interesting.

Some actors had great acting, and they made the show so much better. Especially the mother Patti, Guy, and the duchess.

Another issue in the show is there were too many side stories, the viewer could not really feel invested in each one enough because there wasn't enough time to focus on the stories individually. As a result, the series couldn't cover everything properly, some had plot holes, and some were rushed.

I understand that there's gonna be a second season, but still some plots were unnecessary. Also, I did not like how some stories concluded, especially what happened to Lizzie. She did not get the closure she deserved. Lizzie, the character as a whole had so much potential, but I don't know why they completely set her to the side.

Overall, the show could definitely be better. I don't know If I will watch S2, I'll wait and see if the plot-line is worth it or not.

I oddly enjoy it. Despite the over the top, American loudness of our main character group. Because it does seem very American. Everything about the show screams it.

Does it seem a rip off of Bridgerton, yes.

I cringe when the group of girls scream like they're on spring break. When they go swimming in their underclothes with batchelors.

I'm only 3 episodes in but their behaviours, their vocabulary, their style of dress are very inconsistent with what would have been the norm.

Instead it seems like a group of Valley cheerleaders have been transplanted into mid 1800s England.

I guess it's made made to appeal to a TikTok generation's imagining of what that time would be like.

Despite the faults of the show and my inward cringing of just how...American...it is, I kind of enjoy it. Most of the cast are capable actors.

If you don't mind glossing over historical accuracy and enjoy a bit of vapidness, you probably wouldn't mind spending a few hours watching this.

Edith Wharton's unfinished 1938 novel gets a second chance as a TV series, no doubt aided by Marion Mainwaring's completion of the book in 1993, based on Wharton's notes. The literary world was split on the two versions, but were in total cahoots when chastising the 1995 BBC TV series.

Almost thirty years on and Apple TV give it a fresh life for the modern audience, but still set it in the original period of 1870, when New York social manners where on a decline (that part of it brilliantly captured on another 2022 TV series - The Gilded Age). So a group of very American kind-of-women travel to London with the excuse of finding the perfect mannered rich English husband (but really find themselves in the process!).

The first thirty minutes seemed to be doomed, with a messy and uninteresting lazy set-up, pandering to a younger hip audience. It is soon saved by Wharton's true passion and champion of women's dilemmas during the patriarchy rule of the 1870's. Unfortunately the filmmakers style leans more toward a lightweight soapy romantic drama that has a rather blunt edge, but still maintains your interest with its lavish production.