Commentaires des utilisateurs

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.

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.

Whilst I do love a modern injection to a period piece, There are so many things wrong with the direction and writing, and oh so obvious modern production lighting. Its just not believable. Men and women would never bathe together in a pond, or dance informally at a private party unless they were a bunch of Pre-Raphaelite Bohemians or it was a planned orgy (not the case here... but there is a TV series idea in that notion!) Furthermore, the lack of knowledge about the period , context and the class system oozes out everywhere... the overused, over familar speech "hey" (a mark of disrespect in those times) , "I'll call the authorities" implicating phone usage ( call upon, call out for, notify etc) , notable southern english accents that would be considered lower middle class/upper lower class at the time, hugging a champagne flute with your entire hand (vs holding at stem) and well bred gentle folk pointing at people (key characters and background) would be considered lower class or at least improper behaviors . That they ( are meant to) have heritage, class and money , this separates them from the other people in society, UK or USA. The make up however was a surprise, a saving grace... brava!... more period correct - barely noticable!

By keeping it period, with some modernity, the intended re telling of story would have much more punch.

... one critic's comments... "The Buccaneers, a refreshing take on the period drama genre, exploring the clash of cultures and the pursuit of love and ambition with a modern sensibility, all within the enchanting setting of 1870s London. Its bold and unapologetic approach might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it undeniably adds a unique flavor to the genre."

... an ok show, well done for the most part... you'll know within the first episode if you're going to be sticking with it week to week... it's entertaining to a 6 of 10, really not much more... acting like it's trying to be, yet Bridgerton it's not

... 12.14.23 - quite the S1 ending ... night b4 wedding, hubby-to-be out on some balcony drinking, while fiance's 'bedroom-entertaining'.. and that's only one of the pairings... S2 coming ... (and actually early-episodes new-Bridgerton's-boring)

If you hang in there long enough you get to know the characters and then it becomes interesting. Where they lose me is with the music. I really enjoy period pieces, but everything should be according to that period. The music is all over the place, and certainly not from that period. The music blows the whole thing up for me.

As a 65-year-old male who doesn't have much use for costume dramas, I truly enjoyed The Buccaneers. For those reviewers comparing this to Bridgerton, it's completely different - and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. If I was to compare it with another show in the same vein, the obvious one is Dickinson, another Apple TV+ period piece. Both shows have a youthful spirit that's invigorating. Additionally, the quality of the acting, writing and cinematography are all first-class. Like Dickinson, the music is mostly well-chosen 21st century songs, not the orchestral re-imaginings of Bridgerton. For me, that makes the entire experience eminently more emotional and enjoyable. Put aside any preconceptions and just go along for the ride. If you do, I bet you'll enjoy The Buccaneers as much as I did - and, hopefully, Apple TV+ orders a second season, since there are several interesting directions for this show to explore.

I'm a huge Regency romance fan and was intrigued by this show. Yet I've found myself rolling my eyes more and more as each episode passes. The character's personalities and are inconsistent and the direction makes the show remain shallow as it grasps at depth. The rah-rah sisterhood theme of the show is quickly bowled over for flashy and increasingly annoying drama. I think this show had potential to be an alternative to Bridgerton but the sets and costumes do the heavy lifting to make the show feel 1800s. I never thought I would come across the manic dream girl in a period drama but alas here we are... men falling over one character because she just happens to not want to swim in a corset or takes her shoes off. I love the sets and costumes are good but not memorable but the show makes me annoyed as a regency romance lover.

A good watch while you're waiting for the third season of Bridgerton, or suffering through droughtlander! The show follows the 4 friends of an American heiress who marries a rich Englishman after a Summer fling. I don't exactly understand why- but they go visit her in England for a season of balls and to try to catch their own titled husbands. Yes the characters are teenage girls, but I don't understand why in some other reviews, everyone is so angry about them acting like teenage girls. This 43 year old mom who loves period drama loves it! Sisters fight, families have secrets, girls fight over liking the same boy, women get stuck in unhappy marriages, drama, drama and more drama. If you like drama, this is for you!

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.

I haven't read the Edith Warton novel this is based on but I enjoyed the 1995 miniseries much more than this one even with all its flaws. I can see by some of the reviews that people don't realize this based on a historical fiction novel set in the Gilded Age (late Victorian) not set in an alternate universe (à la Bridgerton). Wharton was born in 1861 so she wrote from first hand experience. The original novel was unfinished so it has been open to reworking and finishing since her death. It seems someone decided Wharton's excellent writing needed the "Bridgerton treatment". I've seen some other historical fiction series that were able to incorporate modern music and language in a way that fits with the tone and style of the story but this is definitely not one of those. The music seems like they just picked random pop songs that don't fit with anything. Also insults the viewer's intelligence by hitting you over the head with the feminist theme in modern language as if we can't figure it out on our own.

I live for teen angst & true love - pair that with period costumes, lavish sceneries & dancing: I'm in! I love the characters and the way the show isn't trying to be so serious.

Now, don't let all the negative comments deter you from making up your own mind.

I saw someone comment that "the main viewers of Apple+ are older mothers" & that's just not true! Main demographic for Apple+ are 18-29 yo girls. This show is made for the Apple+ demographic.

They have so many other "grown up" shows, let the young folk have fun! Goddamn that's the entire premise of the show: the old & stiff people want to ruin the fun for all the young ones that havent learned to fear or be ashamed of themselves yet!

It's still like this, it's always been like this, god forbid anything is made for young girls to shamelessly enjoy and gush over!

I'm so sick of this negativity towards "girly things", towards "shamelessly enjoying something that isn't all that serious", towards "adaptions that aren't 100% word for word the book".

Just let people live! I'm pretty sure the author would've been overjoyed to see millions of people watch her book come to life!

Write a book, get it published & get the movie rights sold. Then we'll talk :)

Until then: enjoy this, if you want! If not, that's fine too, just don't try to spoil the fun of everyone else by giving it bad reviews so it ends up being cancelled & kills the fun for everyone else!

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk / gaudy American spectacle (iykyk) ;)

I suffered through the whole abyss of shallowness which are the 8 episodes of this monstrosity so as to give it every chance possible. I could have stopped at the 2nd episode, which displays the exact same appaling dialogue and storyline as the rest of the series.

The 1st episode is probably the worst of them all, the constant screeching is unbearable.

Pretending this has anything to do with the brilliant work of Edith Wharton is an insult on so many levels, I don't know how the people involved can look at themselves in the mirror.

It seems to have been written by a 14 year old. The dialogue and the situations in which the characters put themselves into are so stupid and immature it made me cringe every 2 minutes on average.

I'm not even talking about the gross misrepresentation of the period's mores such as not running around half dressed all the time, young ladies just deciding everything for themselves and other absurdites which are completely contrary to the point Wharton is trying to make.

The producers just wanted a pretty love mess to seduce their audience. Well, pretty it is - eventhough most costumes are so badly cut I don't understand how they can have been approved to be filmed - but the sets are the only truly well achieved part of this show. The cast is pretty as well I suppose, I can't really judge their acting with such awful dialogue. The love stories are not engaging and are trying to look complicated when they're really just stupid.

Unless you are an uncultivated and unread 14 year old on a sugar rush, avoid at all costs.

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.

Not great at first, definitely trying hard to be Bridgerton, but still entertaining. The worst decision the creators of the show did was cast Alisha Boe, I'm sorry but she brings down the quality of the show making it feel very "High School" and she plays almost the exact same character as she does on 13 Reasons why. I feel the show would have been much better without her. Other than that, the rest of the casting is great. I love all the characters and the actors do a great job bringing their characters to life. It's very unrealistic but so is any show of that theme. The storylines are good and catchy. The costumers are ehh. Nan, Guy, Theo, and Lizzie are all easy to love and get into.

The first time, if memory serves, "The Buccaneers" was made into a TV short series was 1995. The BBC saw to make a four episode program that started Carla Gugino, Mira Sorvino, Allison Elliott, Rya Kihlstedt, Greg Wise (yes, Emma Thompson's husband), James Frain, and a slew of exceptional English actors. It was good, and perhaps its shorter length enhanced the intensity and imparted more feelings of drama. I adored it, and it's not because I lived in England for a year.

This eight ep series is, dare I say, better. It has been modernized not only in soundtrack, but in character creation and development. There are more likable characters who possess depth, real time was spent in crafting positive and negative character attributes that appear consistently, two leads are Black, the four Buccaneers aren't glammed up, and the unlikable characters aren't stereotypes.

You'll see many negative and meh reviews here. Ignore them.

Watch this. Remember when you were young, when you were single, when you were the subject (and/or object) of a fix up, shiddoch, or arranged marriage.

Watch this. Appreciate how love is a feeling, a necessity, a philosophy, and it can be a commodity.

This show is so much fun! I hate how many people say it's trying to copy Bridgerton and fails. This show is amazing on its own and only has slight similarities to Bridgerton. If you expect a replica of Bridgerton, you'll be disappointed. It you expect a fun, entertaining and romantic history drama, you'll be delighted.

Just give it a try and enjoy the show for what it is. I'm very intrigued by the drama and can't wait to watch the next episodes. The characters are all so well written and have a lot of depth, the costumes are fantastic, the filming is beautiful. It might not be perfect historically but that's not what it's trying to do :)

Its basically period drama for teens. Whoever says that this is not how things were properly done in 1870s, yeah it might be true but also I always think there were mischievous people who did act like this. And there is some truth to it since American girls did marry poor British royals for titles.

Acting isnt great, far from it, but its fun and whimsical and needed. Television or streaming services lack shows that are like this. Just lets you watch it for an hour and be done with it. Shows dont need to be smart and histocially correct to be fun and let your mind wonder.

It might literally end up being a teenage drama but I love it just for that. I miss good old teenage dramas and if its set in the 19th century thats just perfect.

Let's have modern young women with the graceless sensibilities of Tiktok queens don period clothing and go full-tilt through their lurid antics. The theme here seems to be that the English of the gilded age were unbearably stuffy, and American girls were mannerless heathens.

I have no appreciation for the current trend of pairing traditional source material with contemporary music and movement. If it's for humor's sake, that can be worthwhile, but this sort on anachronistic mishmash does nothing but profane the original book.

For an interpretation that would not leave Edith Wharton spinning, try the 1995 version. Not perfect, but far better than this.

I, too, thought The Buccaneers was going to be a flop, but I stuck with it, and the story grew, got stronger, and more engaging. Some of the acting was weak, but it certainly didn't deserve the poor ratings some of these reviewers gave it.

I thoroughly enjoyed the soundtrack, with Taylor Swift singing in the first and last episode (Oh my!!! Now they'll really swoon!). I like this new genre that blends 21st Century music, language, and mores with Austen and Wharton. It's also even more amusing watching the purists clutch their pearls over it!

The Buccaneers ended with a cliffhanger and got a second season, so maybe the haters should have watched past Episode 1.

Go watch the BBC 1995 mini series.

Cons: This Apple TV version is cringe worthy on so many levels. From the modern vocabulary, contemporary music attempts to the historical inaccuracies of lords and ladies parading around half-naked (unheard of in the 19th century) among each other. They dragged it out with unnecessary plot devices not in the original (Nan's parentage, the extra character of Mabel, just to name a few).

The showrunners saw Bridgerton, thought they'd do an update to this story and failed to meet the standards.

Pros: costumes, settings and filming locations. Watch for the eye candy. Don't expect much substance.