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.

Despite James Graham's strong track record in political drama, Brian and Maggie fails to deliver the punch it promises. While Steve Coogan's Brian Walden is an impressive mimicry, his character lacks depth, making his off-screen moments feel as stiff as his on-screen ones. Harriet Walter's Margaret Thatcher faces a similar struggle-her performance is hampered by artificial visual choices that create a layer of detachment rather than authenticity. The chemistry between the two leads never quite sparks, leaving their evolving dynamic feeling flat. Stephen Frears' direction only adds to the sluggishness, with long, drawn-out sequences that drain the tension from critical political exchanges.

Beyond its structural and performance issues, the drama also tiptoes around the deeper consequences of Thatcherism. The economic policies that defined her era-deregulation, slashed taxes for the rich, and an all-out assault on workers' rights-aren't meaningfully explored. Instead, the script reduces the political backdrop to broad ideological soundbites, avoiding the reality of how Thatcher's economic model widened the gap between rich and poor, leading to an oligarchic system where billionaires rule as they like because they just buy politicians for shilling on the quid of return. What could have been a searing critique of power and media influence instead becomes a safe, superficial reenactment, missing the chance to expose the lasting damage of an era that still shapes Britain today.

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.