Brian and Maggie

Offers a brilliant insight into point at which Thatcher's stony facade began to crumble - Harriet Walter's turn is a brilliant piece of acting, and Coogan is incredibly arresting also. While far from sympathetic, this is a more nuanced Thatcher, certainly calculated and cunning, but also vulnerable and dare I say, feminine. Indeed this femininity was partially used against her at her downfall. The misogyny veiled as good traditional (or 'moral') values that she championed with such vehemence was ultimately used against her in the later years: this is all subtly hinted at here. Another gem in the dramatisational canon of the Thatcherite years.

Harriet Walter doesn't try to mimic Thatcher's accent very closely, which leads to a more natural, less strangulated performance than those of Meryl Streep and Gillian Anderson. She looks too old, but is otherwise fairly convincing. As for Steve Coogan, I agree with another reviewer who says he often just seems to be playing himself. This is sadly true. Despite slight touches of the voice and diction, he doesn't capture Walden's manner as I remember it (and as we see it in those few seconds at the end.) Also I'd have liked more about the 1989 situation and less of the back story that took up episode 1.

The program is excellent, but there were more nuances in reality. There were many radical changes under Margaret Thatcher, but by the third term there was already hubris that had caused rumblings, especially over the "poll tax". The real interview was not an obvious defeat, and much longer. The programmes apparent claim that the interview was the start of Margaret Thatcher's downfall is therefore misleading. Plots were already happening because of Lawson's departure and later because of Howe's speech. The epilogue with Margaret Thatcher holding forth after her resignation, looked like a eulogy for her policies, that are now the political norm. Steve Coogan's ability to slip into an character is remarkable. Harriet Walter looked more like Nancy Reagan, but had the right voice and mannerisms. I would say it is a successful, thought-provoking programme.

The programme tries to portray Brian Walden putting Margaret Thatcher "on the ropes". I've just watched the actual interview and watched her reactions to his questions closely and at no time does she seem rattled or uncomfortable with them. On the contrary she dealt with them with patience and sang froid that Starmer can only dream of. She was the best PM since Churchill and the programme only reminded me of what this country used to be. Her visions and firmness of leadership have been sadly lacking of late. Watch the drama then watch the original interview and see the REAL Margaret Thatcher..

I love politics drama, but this one just didn't fire on any cylinder.

Firstly they start with the end - thus immediately popping the balloon of where this story was going.

They never really built the narrative of where the UK was, and where Thatcher was at the time. The supporting characters came in and out, but they never really told the story of what led to Thatcher's downfall. A few grumbles in a hallway, then you're meant to emotionally invest in the outcome.

I felt the writers were trying to find positive in Thatcher even if they found it hard. I may be wrong, but they just stuck on certain talking points like being able to succeed whatever your background. It kept coming up again and again like it was the only positive thing they could latch on to with a complicated character in UK history.

Even tension around the final interview is kind of zapped by the execution. With the by-the-numbers extras commenting on the broadcast, thus explaining to you what you are meant to be thinking rather than really letting the interview stand on its own legs.

Frost vs Nixon, this was not.

In terms of the actors I think the actress taking on Margaret did very well even if she did go a bit Esther Rantzen at times.

The actor playing Brian... well when he was in the interview scenes it snapped me back to the 80s when I was kid. I remember seeing him interview on TV even if I didn't 'get it' as I was quite young, but I immediately was back there. Outside of the interview scenes he could have been anyone.

This could have been a lot more overall. I think it was a tenuous basis for a show, and then they failed to really capitalise on what was on offer.

Not awful, but quite limp.