Brian and Maggie

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.

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.

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.

I was around when the televised interview between former Labour politician turned television presenter Brian Walden and the then serving Prime Minister, the formidable Margaret Thatcher took place, although I don't remember it being quite as consequential as this two part dramatisation would perhaps indicate. Nevertheless portraying real life interviews can make for good television and sometiimes cinema, as witness the Frost-Nixon exchanges, the two recent programmes on the Prince Andrew / Emily Maitlis tete-a-tete on the BBC "Newsnight" show and I can even recall the infamous exchange between rival football managers Don Revie and Brian Clough being made into a very watchable drama starring Michael Sheen and Colm Meaney a few years back. There's just something about a head-to-head confrontation between two usually media-savvy individuals striving to put across their point of view, although the ones we tend to remember are the ones that go wrong for the interviewee, another recent example being the catastrophic Michelle Mone interview with Laura Kuenssberg. People might also mention the most famous one of all, Princess Diana's confessional outpouring to Martin Bashir, which captivated the nation, but Bashir hardly took the offensive on that occasion and clearly was cleverly played by a Princess determined to have her point of view put across.

Still, this well-made programme certainly brought back the dog-days of Thatcher's near 11-year reign as Prime Minister, and indeed, within months of the broadcast, she had indeed been forced to resign by her own Party, at last sick and tired up of her autocratic ways, ruling her cabinet by dictat rather than consensus.

The show uses the by-now familiar format of retrospectively inserting into the present-day narrative, which actually doesn't amount to much more than watching Walden and Thatcher prepare for the interview, the preceding events, taking us back to Walden's own days in the Commons and Thatcher's surprise rise to power. I'm not sure I recall Walden ever being talked of as a future Labour leader as the show states but he assuredly was up there with the Robin Day's and the Dimbleby brothers as the grand inquisitors of the day.

A picture is built up of a growing mutual respect and possibly even a friendship between the two protagonists with the indication that this led to Walden going soft on Thatcher with each succeeding interview. In the end, Thatcher perhaps takes her relationship with Walden for granted, not receiving his calls and Walden at last reacting adversely to this as well as the promptings of his editorial team that he go on the offensive for once.

That he certainly does in the actual interview, with Thatcher, who coincidentally was at a particular crisis point in her administration with the recent shock resignation of her "unassailable" long-serving Chancellor Nigel Lawson, visibly bristling with each incisive thrust of Walden's. It's no surprise then to learn in a subtitle displayed over the end credits that the pair never talked again after the show.

The two episodes here seemed a bit fleshed out but nevertheless were well staged and very well acted by Steve Coogan and Harriet Walter in the lead parts. I just hope, well-made as they often are, that these heightened dramatisations of documented real-life events never get confused with the real thing! In these days of AI and fake news, you just never know!

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.