Yes, I saw their movie repeat last month and it was exceptional. Ayckbourn is hard to get right (the balance between the constant laughs and the essential seriousness can easily tip too far one way or the other), and this production gets it right. The set calls for 2 floors of a suburban mini-mansion (as the play develops, it serves for all the family's homes, because all their houses look and are furnished pretty much the same), and this production adds the bonus of putting it on a turntable, so we can see the facade for overture and intermission.
If you have a chance to see it, I highly recommend it. It's one of Ayckbourn's best plays (conceived for this stage -- most of his shows were originally done in the round but this one needs this kind of set), and it's hard to imagine it being done better.
I saw this in London in April and I agree the settings worked perfectly. I just felt the piece is DEEPLY Thatcherian/English and not at all meant for American audiences. I'm a giant Anglophile and followed and understood the play, I still felt that that the real parody/comedy/satire was something I just didn't fully grasp, especially *SPOILER* the murder in the bathroom at the end *END SPOILER* I really don't grasp what that in particular was saying. The greed and thirst for money and the same house I understood as it was the same here with Reganomics and "Yuppies."
I've always felt it was more universal than being tied to a certain time period or place. It seemed to be about the slippery slope by which we compromise our principles just a little, and then a little more...
Probably many/most parents would try to get their daughter out of trouble for a really petty bit of shoplifting. And then that leads to a little quid pro quo (but who does it hurt really?), and then more, and where does it stop?