http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rv5t6rC6yvg#!

Please, let's not have an argument. I'll let the video stand for itself. She was absolutely brilliant, the world is a better place because of her. I hope this movie coming out does not smear her, but that is a naive hope. Rewriting history is a popular game in some circles. But even her enemies could appreciate her brilliance, as is apparent in this video. We won't see her like again, sadly.

Kevin,

Saw The Iron Lady today.

First off i am B******s at film reviews so will only pass on a few comments. I'm not sure this should be in this thread but it seemed sensible to follow your post.

Film: Good, not great, IMO.

Acting: Bloody brilliant. Merryl Streep reaffirms why i consider her to be the best actress i have ever seen. Stunning. The rest are also really sound, it's good stuff.

I think it must be very difficult to do a film about a famous character with so many important episodes and try and cover most of it. Many films will focus on a specific period in a persons life, this is wider. The result is you are left with an old person "after" a career rather than the standard film/story method of the protagonist ending after a journey and discovering something about themselves. Accordingly the end is different, muted and a touch sad, after all growing old is a pisser!!

The use of her husband as a side kick is interesting since in the film it is after he is dead. I think it works. The story itself is a blend of history, character and the consequences of age. Ambitious.

I have read that some find it degrading to her,  i don't. She was contentious, there were side affects to her philosophy and she failed to bring with her trusted colleagues. She had great success and also failed, like everyone. The same can definitely be said of Churchill. Like many great leaders, she didn't see her time ending.

So in short, yes, i would recommend.

Good review, Reef. I have mixed feelings about seeing this. I love history pieces, but I hate it when idealogues butcher history to fit their preconceived notions. The link I provided above illustrates it perfectly. When Thatcher and Reagan came into power and implemented their philosophy, their countries were in ruins, and pessimism reigned supreme. The leftist media and academia wailed that their policies would make things worse and people would suffer. The opposite happened, and that should have been the end of the story. But it never is.

The Left searched for ways to say this was illusion, or that only the rich benefited. Bunch of hogwosh. I was in high school then, just joining the job market. I saw things turn around. Wages went up, prices stayed the same. The world changed dramatically. Trust me. I am from a lower middle class family, and the working classes benefited more than anyone. But the people that write the histories and make the movies cannot ever accept their lying eyes.

So they looked for ways to deny what was apparent and obvious. And they went to their old standbye: the gap between the rich and the poor.

The truth is there is no way to measure that gap and the concept is meaningless. If we all got a raise of 15% this year, the gap would grow between the high earners and the lower earners. So is the raise a bad thing?

What does this have to do with film? Look, the working classes knew these policies worked. That's why despite what the media, the BBC, the American networks, were telling them, they kept voting Thatcher and Reagan into office. But memory is a tricky thing. It doesn't travel well across generations. So when films tell the new generation that these policies resulted in working people suffering, people believe it. Those that are young, anyway. Those that weren't there.

Creating their own reality and stealing history is what those in certain circles do best. Unfortunately, recreating reality is the sphere of movie makers, so the folks from those circles have found a home there.