Thankfully, Roger Ebert saved me the time of writing a review for The Iron Lady with an incisive and completely-in-line-with-my-own-view review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120111/REVIEWS/120109984

Whilst Streep managed to bring the goods, the film was a damp squid. It never really delved into either her controversial policies and complete submission to Milton Friedman's madness, or the story of her breaking the glass ceiling.

Jim Broadbent played a blinder as well. Incredibly talented actor.

Maggie's controversial and she deserved a film to investigate that. The strongest (and largely unexplored) segment was when we saw the Tories opposing her bizarre, radical policymaking that decimated northern England in particular (as well as Wales) and set forth a trajectory that exacerbated inequalities that leave us at our current tipping point. It's worthy of noting that the Tories were dragged to a position so far to the right that the internal wrangling finally boiled over with her deserved departure. The intrigue and backstabbing was crying out to be explored. She was, after all, laissez-faire gone mad.

There were so many angles to explore. So many questions. Just a huge disappointment of a film. I'd have rather seen a full-throated support of her terrible policies than the meek copout that we ended up with.

Oh well.

I haven't seen it yet. I am glad they avoided completely indulging in left wing fantasies, an urge some have trouble with.

Perhaps you could consider, Andrew, that spewing an ideological political argument is not the best way to portray a character, whether that ideology is from the left or the right. Britain did better during Thatcher's decade than in the several decades preceding or following. Only stubborn and creative manipulation of facts would result in any other conclusion. So while it is possible to look at the problems of these times and mistakes made, only an extreme ideologue would try to paint a picture of dark and evil times. Distorting history should not be used as an excuse for satisfying a need to see things a certain way, a psychological imperative. That job better left to pure fantasy, like Lord of the Rings.

Her life and policies are eminently worth examining for the drama that took place on many levels. First are the personal obstacles she has to overcome to rise to power. Second are the obstacles she faces in the arena of ideas, where it is difficult to fight for her beliefs in an atmosphere of ideological intolerance. Questioning the Marxist presumptions of the intellectual and media elites meant dealing not only with scorn and ridicule, but in being branded as evil. Some things haven't changed.

Also, certain truths are revealed during her administration, and one wonders how she came to understand them earlier in life. For example, the path to peace is through strength, something that on the surface is ironic, and again, something not understood by the dominant intellectual thinkers of her time. And yet it is revealed during her rule with the fall of the Soviet Union. Perfect for drama.

Another truth was that massive government programs designed to alleviate poverty only served in the long run to create more poverty. No sane person denies this anymore, but it was not obvious to many in Thatcher's time.

The fact that they created this film while she is still alive, but slipping into a state of dementia, creates one more powerful opportunity for drama. In her day, she stood in there toe to toe with her opponents, on the battlefield of ideas, and took on all comers. And she defeated them all. You can youtube videos of this. I provided a link to one earlier. The ideologues on the Left who opposed her were easily vanquished by the power of her intellect. And yet, in the end, they win. Not because her arguments prove wrong. But because time is on their side. As she gets older and feeble of mind, who is there to pick up the sword? Her enemies are weak of intellect, trivial, given to flights of fancy. But they are legion. And they are patient. And if no one picks up the sword, they steal history like the carrion eaters they are.

I'll be honest, Kev... I didn't read that likely diatribe 'cos I've read your nonsense before - save yourself the time wasted. I have no wish to engage in another tiresome political debate with someone who's proven themselves incapable of utilising facts or to have an iota of understanding of the issues. Don't mean to to be rude but no one wants to read the bickering.

I don't want to bicker either, Andrew. One post was needed to set the record straight from your fantasy based comments. I didn't expect you to read the post.  In fact, I knew you wouldn't. I well know by now that you will not allow any facts or well reasoned arguments to penetrate the comfortable little world you've built for yourself, and even glancing at those facts or arguments poses a dangerous threat to that world. Have fun in there.

EDIT: note to James, posting below. I agree, and don't want the political argument to continue. I felt compelled to balance the propaganda of the original post with some reality. One was enough.

Meh, here you two go again. Don't make me bring my egg beater avatar back! You guys will never have a constructive conversation about politics. At least not one that anyone else will give a shit about.  Its a script writing site.  

I was nonplussed by the cream puff approach to such a controversial figure.
In interviews, Meryl claims they were looking to unearth some dramatic nuggets.
And to that end, they went for a meditative and personal approach.

Why add new ingredients when there's plenty of gravy as is?
The obvious expectation is never met and all we're left with is Streep's talent.

I don't subscribe to this alternate take on Thatcher being engaging.
There's so much of her life that naturally lends itself to drama.
So why the soft approach mining for quiet moments of introspection?

You wouldn't do that with an Evel Knievel film, so why do it here?

E.D.