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 :-)

After watching it, I have no real idea of what to say about it, I think the word I'll use is unusual, it was a particularly unusual drama, I gather though that large chunks of this story were actually true. There was indeed a Lady Worseley, and her husband was indeed a voyeur. I think people find it unimaginable that such deviancy occurred back in 1782, but clearly they did. I knew nothing of the story beforehand, I put it on expecting the usual high quality, serious BBC drama, I really wasn't expecting it to be like this. I liked some of the costumes, but some of them, and some of the make up and hair styles looked very much out of place. All in all I think it worked fairly well, it will need a re watch in a few months.

We're back to England in 1782, and the true story of the unusual goings on between Lord and Lady Worsley, back in a time when a man's wife was his property, and he was free to do with her as he wished. A little bit of time hopping shows the scene, Evans meets heiress Natalie Dormer who comes with a hefty dowry. They quickly marry, and it's not long before we discover Sir Richard has some unusual sexual appetites.I am a big fan of Natalie Dormer plays Lady Seymour Worsley, she's proved she can play historical figures with ease, having given a superb performance as Anne Boleyn in the Tudors series, I've always thought she has something bewitching about her.Shaun Evans is excellent as the very stern, slightly sordid Lord Richard Worsley. Being a huge Morse/Endeavour fan, I'm always keen to see him in other things, he does not disappoint.The sets are stunningly lavish, with extremely high production values, the costumes are visually stunning, Dormer's green court outfit is fabulous.The story is unusual, who'd have thought these events occurred back in the 18th century. I applaud the BBC trailer for making it appear as if she was a black widow, and a scheming woman, when actually the story is vastly different.I must admit, I totally enjoyed the court scenes, sometimes when a drama switches to the courtrooms it can develop into melodrama, but the scenes are great. Why has the judge got a sheepskin rug on his head!!!Thank you BBC, I really enjoyed it, long may these Period dramas continue8/10

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