Having seen the promos and trailers in the weeks leading up to release, I was increasingly skeptical. I've always liked Dennis Quaid but was concerned that this may not be his calling and I was right to an extent. His portrayal never really "hit me" and I've been an admirer of Reagan since I was a child. He was pretty much my "first President" so ever since then I will consume a lot of what I can regarding him.
But Quaid just seems to push thru most of his famous quotes without the underlying humor and mannerism's that made them famous to begin with.
An example of such is from when he utters "I hope you're all Republican's" as he's lying on the hospital bed. It just kinda came and went. Now compare that to Richard Crenna in "The Day Reagan was Shot". Crenna carries that phrase much better and it gives me a chuckle just thinking about it. (I also think Crenna's portrayal was much better)
So that leads me into the first of my two biggest gripes I have about the film. The casting was pretty bad. On the plus side, Penelope Anne Miller and Xander Berkeley I thought were excellent portrayals of Nancy and George Schultz with Miller taking the cake. She was the best actor/actress in this film by far. But everyone else had no real essence about their characters that I could buy into. Robert Davi as Brezhnev? No, not likeable in the slightest as is the guy playing Gorbachev but at least they got his birthmark kind of correct.
The 2nd point of contention I had was the portrayal of the 1983 Soviet Nuclear scare(s). The US didn't know of the Stanislav Petrov incident until a considerable amount of time had passed, let alone showing Reagan and his staff in their bunker. This may be due to the film trying to merge the Petrov incident with the Able Archer exercise that occurred 2 months later, I don't know. But it was sloppy and poorly executed. 1983 should have been a high water mark for this film as the tensions between the two nations were never higher. (And yes, I'm including 1962 in that) The pacing should have slowed down and focused more on that but, like an ICBM I guess, it just shot right through.
The pacing, as others have said, was pretty decent but it missed some opportunities to flush out the story a lot more. Supposedly, the original runtime was well over 3 hours but was cut down and the film pays dearly for that. A mere 1/2 hour more could've paid a bigger dividend. I would love to see an extended cut sometime in the future.
Even so, I was still entertained by the film, after all, that's the point right? And there were some nostalgia-like moments to be had within it but I also think there was a missed opportunity to flush out the story much better. And I did end up feeling better coming out then I did going in.
45 out of 101 found this helpful