The Scandalous Lady W

England in 1782, and the true story ( unbelievable but it is true) of the unusual marriage between Lord and Lady Worsley. This is a time when a man's wife was his property, and he was free to do with her as he wished. The films beginning is a little confusing as it jumps back and forth but all becomes clearer as the film progresses.

Natalie Dormer as Lady Seymour Worsley was a perfect casting and she not only looks like the real Lady Seymour Worsley but acts in just the right way as far as I can tell. I notice some have criticised how she spoke etc, but I doubt there are any original recordings of her voice so who can say for sure whether she was always grammatically correct? She was from a wealthy family but I doubt that they ALL spoke like Joanna Lumley.

Shaun Evans is perfect as Lord Richard Worsley and portrays his weirdness as a perverted politician (has nothing changed?)

What I liked about the film was the ending, which I won't give away although many who studied history may already know, but the court scenes showing the jury's decision was priceless.

In all a good watchable film that deserves more credit than many seem to have given it.

I was just looking for something available to fill a late evening via BBC iplayer and went for this - and now I'm off to bed feeling very happy. No need for me to repeat what has already been written in the higher scoring reviews, just to say they reflect my thoughts. However I was surprised by the couple of very low scoring reviews, so after reading them and being fed some doubts about the accuracy or integrity of the film I did some checking. Possibly the language/ dialect used may be slightly different to that of the time but the translation appears to be accurate i.e. the story is accurate. Also there are some comparison pictures of the actress and the real Lady W which are amazingly very close in likeness. Whilst viewing this drama I noticed nothing that made me think it was poor or cut price and have since found nothing false or inferior about the story or film. Therefore I can highly recommend this production which I found as good as any I have seen from the BBC and an enjoyable insight to early modern England and the evolution of gender relations. Worth paying my licence fee for :-)

So refreshing a period movie that doesn't try to mordernise itself. The music, the costumes, the make-up, the wigs, everything feels very authentic to the period. Faithful to the true history behind it, as far as I can tell. I'd love if it was longer, if it explored Lady W's life in France, for example. Acting was great, especially from Natalie Dormer. It's SO rare a period film that doesn't try to be "modern", "relatable to modern audiences" and all that, it was a delightful surprise to watch this. Some candle-lit scenes as well, just beautiful. And one minor detail: she wears a chemise under her corset, SO MANY period dramas get it wrong, it warmed my little historical fashion fixed heart.

Adams 5905 is absolutely right on every count. Natalie Dormer can hack it as a bit part in East Enders, but like most of the female actors today has no grasp of the language and pronunciation of the well-bred aristocrat or even the upper middle class. Joanna Lumley she is not!

As to the script - who begins a sentence with "Myself" as the nominative singular? Only the barely educated. There were several words not in common usage at that time, but why should we be surprised at the slap-dash writing and direction by people who have little formal classical education in English, let alone simple grammar?

Altogether laughable

Well, there's a hour-and-a-half of my life I shan't get back!.. Simply awful-wooden acting (standing stiffly and looking vacantly into the middle distance does not give you poise-it merely looks like you're suffering from haemorrhoids) stilted dialogue (and the wrong language used, at that-I don't think I heard a single use of 'shall', 'should' or 'I am', but rather 'will', 'would' and I'm. People just didn't speak this way-let alone the glottal stop used instead of a final 't'...)-It might have helped if Shaun Evans hadn't grunted every line through his nose, or did he just have very bad cold during the whole shoot?.. At least Cpt Leversuch (Alex Beckett) and Mr Wallace (Craig Parkinson) managed to speak properly-the rest of the cast could do with a course of elocution lessons...

Too much makeup, bad costumes (this was 1782, not 1982-I half-expected Adam Ant to crawl ito view)... I suppose the set design was up to scratch, but the outdoor shoots were awful-this was not how pre-Regency London looked at all...

There was a time, you know, when the BBC could do this sort of thing standing on its head-now... Meh... Hallie Rubenhold, who co-wrote the screenplay, and wrote the book upon which it was based, calls herself a historian?.. Polite Society simply didn't behave like this in public-in private, behind closed doors, perhaps, but face and honour were all (see Lady Caroline Lamb and Lord Byron, who conducted a scurrilous affair in public 30 years later)... Lord Rochester had been dead for over one hundred years when these events occurred...

I've saved the worst for last-who, in (we assume) their right mind imagined that Natalie Dormer was right for this part?.. In addition to looking wrong, and dressing wrongly (see above), she was utterly incapable of delivering her lines without either a languid drawl, or a simper-I'm not sure which was worse... She wasn't even capable of walking properly in costume (see the final scene)!..

Oh, and one final thing, BBC, please stop showing British judges banging gavels in court!.. It has never happened, nor will it ever!..

I think we should demand our licence-payers' money back...