The Buccaneers

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 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'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.

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 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.