216 reviews
When there is so much to tell about the life of a person like Ronald Reagan, the choice for using motion graphics plus live action footage to give the audience these important pieces of narrative information in bite size bits was very strategic and well executed.
Dennis Quaid is fantastic, the man can carry a film like a pro. John Voight is the second heart of this film. He plays a character that I would say is a rival to Quaid's Reagan, but not necessarily an antagonist.
Now for the con, there is only one. The prosthetics for the actors to make them younger in the flash backs is noticeable, but not the worst thing ever.
Dennis Quaid is fantastic, the man can carry a film like a pro. John Voight is the second heart of this film. He plays a character that I would say is a rival to Quaid's Reagan, but not necessarily an antagonist.
Now for the con, there is only one. The prosthetics for the actors to make them younger in the flash backs is noticeable, but not the worst thing ever.
- ghettoplex
- Aug 29, 2024
- Permalink
We saw it last year with Ridley Scott's 'Napoleon': small snippets of his life, like a greatest hits album with 10 vastly different songs and no coherent structure that easily transports us from A to B.
Sadly the same thing is going on here with *Reagan'. Too much need to be told and shown from 1928 when he was a boy to 1989.
'Reagan' does settle down a bit when Gorbachev enters the picture near the end, but then it's too late to save this movie from being somewhat of a disappointment.
'Reagan' could have been a lot better if half of the movie wasn't spent on showing us him growing up as a boy, becoming a B-movie star, becoming a governor, trying to become president etc, and instead just began with him winning the presidency, because all the real drama takes place there, in the 80's, with him and Gorbachev ending the cold war and becoming friends (the movie sadly skipped many historic moments, like Gorbachev's famous visit to Washington DC, the famous signing of the INF treaty in 1987, the ramifications of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in '86 etc.)
The point is: when making a biopic about a famous person, it's better to focus on a part of this person's life, rather than just showing us 1-2 minute scenes taken from several decades, if you want people invested in the story. Or make it a series.
Sadly the same thing is going on here with *Reagan'. Too much need to be told and shown from 1928 when he was a boy to 1989.
'Reagan' does settle down a bit when Gorbachev enters the picture near the end, but then it's too late to save this movie from being somewhat of a disappointment.
'Reagan' could have been a lot better if half of the movie wasn't spent on showing us him growing up as a boy, becoming a B-movie star, becoming a governor, trying to become president etc, and instead just began with him winning the presidency, because all the real drama takes place there, in the 80's, with him and Gorbachev ending the cold war and becoming friends (the movie sadly skipped many historic moments, like Gorbachev's famous visit to Washington DC, the famous signing of the INF treaty in 1987, the ramifications of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in '86 etc.)
The point is: when making a biopic about a famous person, it's better to focus on a part of this person's life, rather than just showing us 1-2 minute scenes taken from several decades, if you want people invested in the story. Or make it a series.
This movie is a hagiography of President Reagan, and whether you like it or not may depend largely upon your political inclinations. The film is a Cliff Notes' version of Reagan's life, but given the scope of his life, there seems no way around that in a movie of conventional length.
The acting is generally impressive. Though he doesn't look much like Reagan, Dennis Quaid captured his voice accurately and gave an inspired performance, and Penelope Ann Miller also created a believable portrait of Nancy Reagan. The film relies heavily on Reagan's actual speeches and is a good reminder of the power of language in politics. As Kennedy said about Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." The movie suggests that Reagan helped to win the Cold War with his rhetoric and his powerful delivery. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Setting aside politics, it's an entertaining movie and a good, albeit one-sided, history lesson about the 40th president of the United States. I liked it.
The acting is generally impressive. Though he doesn't look much like Reagan, Dennis Quaid captured his voice accurately and gave an inspired performance, and Penelope Ann Miller also created a believable portrait of Nancy Reagan. The film relies heavily on Reagan's actual speeches and is a good reminder of the power of language in politics. As Kennedy said about Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." The movie suggests that Reagan helped to win the Cold War with his rhetoric and his powerful delivery. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Setting aside politics, it's an entertaining movie and a good, albeit one-sided, history lesson about the 40th president of the United States. I liked it.
- artfuldodger-16944
- Sep 6, 2024
- Permalink
I grew up in the Reagan era; I was 10 when he took office in 1981, and clearly remember his assassination attempt, "Reaganomics", his "Star Wars" defense system, his affinity for jellybeans, the Iran-Contra scandal, and his wife Nancy's "War On Drugs" ("Just Say No"). Although I don't feel an affinity for either Republicans or Democrats, I'd say I lean towards the left on the political spectrum, not necessarily aligned with Reagan's conservative views. With that being said, I highly enjoyed his biopic film, leaving the theater with a new respect for our 40th President, especially his disdain for, and his fight against Communism trying to gain a foothold in the United States: not simply during his Presidency, but also 4 decades prior to him taking office, as well as his major role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, without firing a single shot. His story, told from the perspective of a former top Russian KGB agent, was unique and intriguing. The low rating of this film is confusing; I'd highly recommend it to anyone who lived through the Reagan years, or any history afficionado. I rate it 8/10.
- cesarperez71
- Aug 30, 2024
- Permalink
I nearly skipped this film after reading several reviews. I should know better by now. This film brings back to the forefront issues that are still a concern today. As a child in the 60's living in Florida, I well remember the fear we had about Cuba falling to Russian control. I remembered many of the events of the 76 convention - back when there were exciting and not a ridiculous show like the ones in more recent years. I remembered many events from Reagan's time in office as governor and president and my mother remembered many of the events of his time in Hollywood before that. The music provided more ambience as the story was told. Some may believe that this was too glowing of a bio-pic but not one of the critics reviews I read provided any proof the film wasn't factual. They just 'feel like' it's too good to be true. Give me a break. Go see it and make up your own mind. It's clear that many do not want you to do that.
- tami_loves_noles
- Sep 3, 2024
- Permalink
The biggest problem with the film is that it deals with a compelling subject during historically significant times, but it fails to go into much depth.
It's like a highlight reel that gives you the scores, but not how the outcome was achieved, In other words, it's the Readers Digest version.
Dennis Quaid, as Reagan, has him down to a 'T'! The accent, speech patterns, physicality and the spirit of the man, are all captured in Quaid's performance.
Penelope Ann Miller, as Nancy Reagan, likewise captures her voice and vocal patterns and her indomitable support for her husband.
Then, there is the great Jon Voight. It is odd that the story is told through the eyes and narration of a Russian KGB man, but Voight is terrific in the role; which is really 2 roles: the younger and older self.
Reagan is sort of like wanting to tuck in to a eight-course meal, but only being served the appetizer and desert.
It's like a highlight reel that gives you the scores, but not how the outcome was achieved, In other words, it's the Readers Digest version.
Dennis Quaid, as Reagan, has him down to a 'T'! The accent, speech patterns, physicality and the spirit of the man, are all captured in Quaid's performance.
Penelope Ann Miller, as Nancy Reagan, likewise captures her voice and vocal patterns and her indomitable support for her husband.
Then, there is the great Jon Voight. It is odd that the story is told through the eyes and narration of a Russian KGB man, but Voight is terrific in the role; which is really 2 roles: the younger and older self.
Reagan is sort of like wanting to tuck in to a eight-course meal, but only being served the appetizer and desert.
Some folks are going to gloss over reviews (such as some in this list) from those who are overt fans of Reagan. Well, take it from one who wasn't a fan, at least while he was President, it's a good movie.
Sure, it's celebration of Reagan, but that is because he was an impactful President and mostly for the better (my appreciation for him grew after he left office, particularly after the USSR imploded). It also adheres closely to actual history. The narrator may have been contrived and some childhood stories may be embellished, but it otherwise traces the arc of his life and career well.
Initially, I didn't think Dennis Quaid's physical differences with the actual Reagan made him a good fit for the role. However, as the movie progressed, he matched the voice and mannerisms well enough for me to imagine the real thing. For whatever reason, Reagan's children (with one brief exception) are entirely absent from the film. That aside, it did a good job depicting Ron and Nancy's deep bond and an after-hours break from partisanship (I'm referring to Reagan's interactions with Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill) that we could certainly use today.
The movie will obviously appeal to his fans, but it's a good watch for American and political history buffs as well.
Sure, it's celebration of Reagan, but that is because he was an impactful President and mostly for the better (my appreciation for him grew after he left office, particularly after the USSR imploded). It also adheres closely to actual history. The narrator may have been contrived and some childhood stories may be embellished, but it otherwise traces the arc of his life and career well.
Initially, I didn't think Dennis Quaid's physical differences with the actual Reagan made him a good fit for the role. However, as the movie progressed, he matched the voice and mannerisms well enough for me to imagine the real thing. For whatever reason, Reagan's children (with one brief exception) are entirely absent from the film. That aside, it did a good job depicting Ron and Nancy's deep bond and an after-hours break from partisanship (I'm referring to Reagan's interactions with Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill) that we could certainly use today.
The movie will obviously appeal to his fans, but it's a good watch for American and political history buffs as well.
It's not surprising that politics has affected both the release of this movie and fan reviews and ratings. 61% of the ratings at this writing are either a 1 star or 10 stars. All but two of the 18 written reviews are 8, 9, or 10. One is a 1. Usually clumps like that at the extremes reflect a lot of emotion and bias. Several of the higher written reviews reflect at least some thought and explain their reasoning, but many also reflect at least some bias. I saw this movie in an early afternoon showing on the first Saturday. There could not have been more than 20 in a theatre that holds 10 times that.
This is at least partially a faith based movie since Reagan's Christian faith is expressed on several occasions and at least two prominent actors including Quaid are known for Christian roles. Reagan mentions at least once a Calling to become what he was. Nothing is mentioned, that I could tell, about Nancy's reported beliefs in things a little less orthodox.
I thought there was a underlying Message to the movie which seemed to reflect winning the war against Communism. The is emphasized by using the device of an old Soviet Cold War analyst describing how he followed Reagan's career. That this character started tracking him as early as he did allows this device to follow much of Reagan's life, but seems a little far fetched to me. I found a theme of defeating Communism to be odd given that it is still thriving in a least a couple of countries at the time of the movie's release, not to mention the political indoctrination in our schools which appears to have won over many of our younger generations. The movie holds up free speech a few times and yet an increasing number of young people favor the elimination of disinformation, not to mention a couple of European governments. I often think that Kruschev's prophecy is coming true.
By the end of the movie, Quaid's mannerisms were such that it was easy to think we were looking at Ronnie. He did a decent job of delivering several of Reagan's more famous witticisms.
I have studied a lot of history, especially American. The movie isn't terrible as a historical piece but it is a little sensationalized in the sense of making Reagan look good.
Because of the release timing, one can't help but wonder what is the desired impact on our current election. I will leave it to you to decide what was intended, but I think the results are mixed. Neither candidate reflects Reagan's values completely. There are some serious inconsistencies if one in particular is intended, but there may be at least a couple of valid comparisons.
This is at least partially a faith based movie since Reagan's Christian faith is expressed on several occasions and at least two prominent actors including Quaid are known for Christian roles. Reagan mentions at least once a Calling to become what he was. Nothing is mentioned, that I could tell, about Nancy's reported beliefs in things a little less orthodox.
I thought there was a underlying Message to the movie which seemed to reflect winning the war against Communism. The is emphasized by using the device of an old Soviet Cold War analyst describing how he followed Reagan's career. That this character started tracking him as early as he did allows this device to follow much of Reagan's life, but seems a little far fetched to me. I found a theme of defeating Communism to be odd given that it is still thriving in a least a couple of countries at the time of the movie's release, not to mention the political indoctrination in our schools which appears to have won over many of our younger generations. The movie holds up free speech a few times and yet an increasing number of young people favor the elimination of disinformation, not to mention a couple of European governments. I often think that Kruschev's prophecy is coming true.
By the end of the movie, Quaid's mannerisms were such that it was easy to think we were looking at Ronnie. He did a decent job of delivering several of Reagan's more famous witticisms.
I have studied a lot of history, especially American. The movie isn't terrible as a historical piece but it is a little sensationalized in the sense of making Reagan look good.
Because of the release timing, one can't help but wonder what is the desired impact on our current election. I will leave it to you to decide what was intended, but I think the results are mixed. Neither candidate reflects Reagan's values completely. There are some serious inconsistencies if one in particular is intended, but there may be at least a couple of valid comparisons.
This 141 minute infomercial is mainly for Reagan fans. It traces his life story from his early radio career to his Hollywood McCarthyite attacks, to his first failed marriage, to battling the unions, campaigning for "Bang-Bang" Barry Goldwater, sneering at the anti-Vietnam War student protesters as California Governor, to trying to unseat Gerald Ford, and to bamboozling Gorbachev into thinking the Cold War could end. Dennis Quaid and Penelope Ann Miller are convincing as the POTUS and FLOTUS, but, weirdly, the story is told by ex-KGB agent Jon Voight to a younger man, who exhibits no interest in the subject except to listen politely, presumably the audience's role as well. Apparently, the KGB knew early on that Reagan would be the St. George destined to slay the Communist dragon, a laughable contention. Omitted entirely is the "amiable dolt" as Clark Clifford knew him and the VP, ex-CIA Director GHW Bush. A narrower focus, say 1980-1988, might have been wiser.
- theognis-80821
- Oct 11, 2024
- Permalink
Reagan was the first candidate for president that I ever voted for (he won) and I've always admired him. What he did to fight communism was brilliant. He clearly understood the threat to freedom and how Russia was trying to get a stronghold in America. Dennis Quaid played him very well and conveyed the president's charm and resoluteness perfectly. I laughed, I cried, got angry, and was in awe of one of the greatest presidents of my lifetime. The cast was great, the story well crafted and the acting was good. I think everyone who loves our country and its history should see it! It's just a shame that it hasn't received more publicity.
- allielle-95455
- Sep 7, 2024
- Permalink
Just saw the movie tonight.
I live in a religiously conservative area (more on that in a minute).
While for the most part historically accurate the movie glossed over a lot of details in favor of painting Reagan as some sort of second coming of Christ.
It was very superficial in terms of character development and anything at all negative about him was treated with kid gloves, such as the AIDS epidemic, the Iran-Contra affair, and his disastrous trickle-down economic policies.
While his son Michael was a character in the movie none of his other children were even mentioned, especially the critical and embarrassing ones, Patti and Ron.
None of this was Quaid's fault although his was more character portrayal than acting, but I'm surprised there wasn't a halo over him the whole time.
At the end of the movie the majority of the audience in the nearly full theater clapped and some even shouted out a "Yeah!". I took a look and realized that most were retirees and none were even getting up to leave even though the credits were half over, like it was the ending of a church sermon or something.
Gag me with a spoon....
I live in a religiously conservative area (more on that in a minute).
While for the most part historically accurate the movie glossed over a lot of details in favor of painting Reagan as some sort of second coming of Christ.
It was very superficial in terms of character development and anything at all negative about him was treated with kid gloves, such as the AIDS epidemic, the Iran-Contra affair, and his disastrous trickle-down economic policies.
While his son Michael was a character in the movie none of his other children were even mentioned, especially the critical and embarrassing ones, Patti and Ron.
None of this was Quaid's fault although his was more character portrayal than acting, but I'm surprised there wasn't a halo over him the whole time.
At the end of the movie the majority of the audience in the nearly full theater clapped and some even shouted out a "Yeah!". I took a look and realized that most were retirees and none were even getting up to leave even though the credits were half over, like it was the ending of a church sermon or something.
Gag me with a spoon....
Regean is not deserving of the low critic ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritc (as of this writing, it sits at 20% and 22% respectively), but it is not quite a 10 out of 10 motion picture, either. It is well acted, the story is serviceable, and so is the direction overall, but if you are coming in expecting a straightforward biography of Ronald Reagan from his youth to his final days you will only be slightly disappointed, as a lot of the events in his life are recounted by the narration of Viktor Petrovich (Jon Voight). It certainly has its place in a story about the 40th President of the United States, but sometimes presents a slight "tell instead of show" problem as the narrative progresses and sometimes interferes with some of the retellings of the more dramatic moments in Reagan's life.
This motion picture does portray Reagan favorably but does not glamorize and glorify every aspect of his life and every decision he made in the entertainment industry, his relationships, and time in office. Dennis Quaid gives an excellent performance worthy of award recognition, nailing everything about Reagan from his voice, mannerisms, and personality, his chemistry with Penelope Ann Miller is fantastic.
Definitely worth a watch.
This motion picture does portray Reagan favorably but does not glamorize and glorify every aspect of his life and every decision he made in the entertainment industry, his relationships, and time in office. Dennis Quaid gives an excellent performance worthy of award recognition, nailing everything about Reagan from his voice, mannerisms, and personality, his chemistry with Penelope Ann Miller is fantastic.
Definitely worth a watch.
- Darwinskid
- Sep 7, 2024
- Permalink
You will see that there is nothing new under the sun. The same haters we have now, we had back then. College Protests at Berkley, Communist influence in our industries.... including the media. Anyone who was born after the 80s will get a good history lesson and those who where around at the time will be reminded of what Peace Through Strength looked like. The story focuses on the lifelong fight Mr. Reagan had against the evils of communism.
The make up and acting were great and I personally appreciate the actors who take risks to give America a positive uplifting story.
The locations and sets were realistic. Go see the movie, you will not be disappointed!
The make up and acting were great and I personally appreciate the actors who take risks to give America a positive uplifting story.
The locations and sets were realistic. Go see the movie, you will not be disappointed!
- burro-33984
- Aug 29, 2024
- Permalink
As a history movie and biopic nerd, I've been following the development of it for most of the last decade. Given its long development, not to mention some of its supporting cast choices (including politically conservative actors Jon Voight, Robert Davi, and Kevin Sorbo) and the fact it's been sitting on a shelf since it was filmed in 2020-21, I wondered what the final product would be.
I'll be honest: I've got very mixed feelings about the thing I spent two and a bit hours watching.
Quaid was fantastic, as I expected. A little airbrushed/over made-up looking in some of the younger scenes but damn good all the same. His reading of Reagan's 1994 Farewell Letter was remarkable. And, as predicted when the trailer dropped earlier this summer, Quaid didn't share a single scene with any of the aforementioned outspoken actors. A part of me suspects they have been brought in to get a bit more money without causing too much fuss.
And it's a film that clearly needed money if the production values are anything to go by. They're a couple of steps up from a Lifetime or cable tv movie. They tried but the budget wasn't quite there and you can tell it in the production values and the odd CGI shot that looked cheap. One area where the film had value put was in its score which was good, though overbearing in places due to the sound mix, with a highlight being the main title Cold War crash course (though The Man from UNCLE film in 2015 did the concept better).
Then there's the script. It tried to cram his whole life into two hours and it's deeply unfocused as a result. There's some stuff in it that's misrepresentation (such as the 1983 war scare) or just made up (including a sequence that shows the "Tear Down this Wall" speech covered live worldwide, a speech that was boosted to its current status mythic status well after Reagan left office). Like the production values, it's a couple of steps up from Lifetime or a Christian DVD movie (which it becomes in a few places rather jarringly) but it's got its moments. There's almost no nuance or sense of Reagan beyond politics or Nancy (their children barely appear), with AIDS covered in a brief montage and Iran-Contra dealt with in about eight minutes with no real look at what Reagan did or did not do. Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer this was not, with neither screenwriter Howard Klausner or director Sean McNamara capable of doing anything but highlight the positives.
Reagan the movie is a mixed bag, to put it mildly. Worth the wait of a decade? Probably not. Is there still a better film to be made about Reagan?
No doubt.
I'll be honest: I've got very mixed feelings about the thing I spent two and a bit hours watching.
Quaid was fantastic, as I expected. A little airbrushed/over made-up looking in some of the younger scenes but damn good all the same. His reading of Reagan's 1994 Farewell Letter was remarkable. And, as predicted when the trailer dropped earlier this summer, Quaid didn't share a single scene with any of the aforementioned outspoken actors. A part of me suspects they have been brought in to get a bit more money without causing too much fuss.
And it's a film that clearly needed money if the production values are anything to go by. They're a couple of steps up from a Lifetime or cable tv movie. They tried but the budget wasn't quite there and you can tell it in the production values and the odd CGI shot that looked cheap. One area where the film had value put was in its score which was good, though overbearing in places due to the sound mix, with a highlight being the main title Cold War crash course (though The Man from UNCLE film in 2015 did the concept better).
Then there's the script. It tried to cram his whole life into two hours and it's deeply unfocused as a result. There's some stuff in it that's misrepresentation (such as the 1983 war scare) or just made up (including a sequence that shows the "Tear Down this Wall" speech covered live worldwide, a speech that was boosted to its current status mythic status well after Reagan left office). Like the production values, it's a couple of steps up from Lifetime or a Christian DVD movie (which it becomes in a few places rather jarringly) but it's got its moments. There's almost no nuance or sense of Reagan beyond politics or Nancy (their children barely appear), with AIDS covered in a brief montage and Iran-Contra dealt with in about eight minutes with no real look at what Reagan did or did not do. Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer this was not, with neither screenwriter Howard Klausner or director Sean McNamara capable of doing anything but highlight the positives.
Reagan the movie is a mixed bag, to put it mildly. Worth the wait of a decade? Probably not. Is there still a better film to be made about Reagan?
No doubt.
- timdalton007
- Sep 16, 2024
- Permalink
I hated this movie! The nine and ten star shills would say that makes me a "hater", but I'm not a hater of Reagan or his politics..I'm a hater of bad movies. BROTHER is this a bad movie! The pacing is just so off! Reaction shots are held for what seems like an eternity just so we can tell how earnest the actors are. The shots were needed I guess, because the performances of the actors never conveyed any real emotion. The actress portraying Nancy was soap opera bad and literally elicited audible groans from me at times then laughter the next. The camera blocking was completely inert, never doing anything interesting or compelling with angles or lighting, bringing it, once again, into the realm of daytime soap operas. I will say that Dennis Quaid does a serviceable job as Reagan, but the script and directing never gives him a chance to make the man human. It is as if the scriptwriter read a book of Reagan's most famous quotes, then wrote the script to zig-zag between them and loosely tie them together. Honestly, if I had been watching this at home, I would have turned it off after twenty minutes.
- deanbean317
- Aug 30, 2024
- Permalink
This is a great movie, better than I ever expected. After seeing it I came to IMDB expecting to see an 8+ rating, but of course it's barely over 6. Why? The left wing bots are in full force on this one. They have bombarded every single positive review with a not helpful thumbs down. It's so obvious that it does the opposite of it's intended goal. You know this movie is going to be great just by the amount of effort being made to get you not to watch it. It is so wonderful that in a post X world truth comes to light and the American people are no longer being fooled. There is power in numbers and we can all feel a change a coming! Now give me all those down votes, I relish it.
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.
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.
- genpatton-78315
- Sep 1, 2024
- Permalink
While Quaid is praiseworthy in the role, this movie is nothing but a love letter to a man who is pretty much shown as having zero flaws. History tells us otherwise. It's such a shame that what could have been a true and moving biography was turned into republican propaganda to try to make Reagan some kind of folk hero. The man was used by Christian nationalists and profit evangelicals like Falwell because he needed their money and support. Bu the end of his second term, it was clear he was in mental decline, and that deserved more attention. A flawed and almost fictional rose-colored goasses look st the former president.
- PsychTeacherSandy
- Sep 1, 2024
- Permalink
The movie's biggest upside is that Dennis Quaid is awesome as Reagan. When I first saw images of him as Reagan, I was skeptical because I was concerned that he didn't look like Reagan. When I watched the movie, however, I found Quaid to be convincing in his voice and mannerisms; and I think the film's crew did a fine job with the makeup and prosthetics. In addition to Quaid's awesome performance, I think Penelope Ann Miller is convincing as Nancy Reagan: she looks and sounds like Nancy. I love the visuals of Reagan's California ranch and the Oval Office. The closing image of Quaid's smiling on horseback, with a cover of John Denver's "Take Me Home Country Roads" playing, kinda hit me emotionally. At times, the movie can provoke 1980s nostalgia with the images and soundtrack.
That said ... the critics of this movie have a few valid points. The biggest criticism is that the movie goes at a breakneck speed and feels like a bare-bones cliffnotes version of Reagan's life. The movie attempts to cover all of Reagan's life, so the movie gives time to his job as a lifeguard, his days as a choir boy, his first marriage, his acting career, his time as the SAG President, his governorship, his time as president, and the onset of Alzheimer's. The result is that a lot of topics are left out altogether (e.g. Just based on this movie, you might figure that Reagan had no children). Of the topics covered in the movie, many are just skimmed over. For example, I feel as if I blinked my eye and missed Reagan's first wife (played by Mena Sevari); the topic of Grenada is covered in one line that Reagan says to Margaret Thatcher; and George H. W. Bush appears for about 5 seconds in a meeting.
The movie often cuts to newspaper clippings and historical clips to try to condense loaded historical events, and there is a frame narrative involving Jon Voight's character, an aged KGB. I like the idea of having Voight narrate Reagan's story, as his narration often helps keep the movie organized and allows the movie to condense some events. Voight could've worked a little more on his Russian accent, but it's nothing too bad
The other flaw, which critics have stressed, is that the movie is extremely pro-Reagan. I admit that I am a fan of Reagan, and I'm a Republican. So I'm not as angry about the movie's pro-Reaganism as many critics are. But even I have to admit that the movie's extreme pro-Reagan POV hinders its potential to offer historical insight or historical knowledge. The movie straight-up glosses over all of Reagan's flaws or mistakes. Even during its discussion of the Iran-Contra affair, the movie makes Reagan look like an unsuspecting and innocent party. I also found some scenes felt like campaign advertisements. When Reagan is giving a speech during his run as governor, for example, the movie shows several people (e.g. A waitress, a barber, and a man getting a shave) all stop what they're doing and stare at Reagan on TV as if mesmerized. This same scene basically re-occurs when he does the "Tear Down that Wall!" speech. Ronald Reagan in this movie is basically a one-dimensional, anti-communist patriot who almost never commited sin or error knowingly
The movie offers no drama, and there is little educational or historical value. And obviously, you should stay away from his movie if you dislike Ronald Reagan. But if you're a fan of Reagan, you will leave the movie feeling uplifted; Quaid's performance will be enough for you to overlook many of its flaws.
That said ... the critics of this movie have a few valid points. The biggest criticism is that the movie goes at a breakneck speed and feels like a bare-bones cliffnotes version of Reagan's life. The movie attempts to cover all of Reagan's life, so the movie gives time to his job as a lifeguard, his days as a choir boy, his first marriage, his acting career, his time as the SAG President, his governorship, his time as president, and the onset of Alzheimer's. The result is that a lot of topics are left out altogether (e.g. Just based on this movie, you might figure that Reagan had no children). Of the topics covered in the movie, many are just skimmed over. For example, I feel as if I blinked my eye and missed Reagan's first wife (played by Mena Sevari); the topic of Grenada is covered in one line that Reagan says to Margaret Thatcher; and George H. W. Bush appears for about 5 seconds in a meeting.
The movie often cuts to newspaper clippings and historical clips to try to condense loaded historical events, and there is a frame narrative involving Jon Voight's character, an aged KGB. I like the idea of having Voight narrate Reagan's story, as his narration often helps keep the movie organized and allows the movie to condense some events. Voight could've worked a little more on his Russian accent, but it's nothing too bad
The other flaw, which critics have stressed, is that the movie is extremely pro-Reagan. I admit that I am a fan of Reagan, and I'm a Republican. So I'm not as angry about the movie's pro-Reaganism as many critics are. But even I have to admit that the movie's extreme pro-Reagan POV hinders its potential to offer historical insight or historical knowledge. The movie straight-up glosses over all of Reagan's flaws or mistakes. Even during its discussion of the Iran-Contra affair, the movie makes Reagan look like an unsuspecting and innocent party. I also found some scenes felt like campaign advertisements. When Reagan is giving a speech during his run as governor, for example, the movie shows several people (e.g. A waitress, a barber, and a man getting a shave) all stop what they're doing and stare at Reagan on TV as if mesmerized. This same scene basically re-occurs when he does the "Tear Down that Wall!" speech. Ronald Reagan in this movie is basically a one-dimensional, anti-communist patriot who almost never commited sin or error knowingly
The movie offers no drama, and there is little educational or historical value. And obviously, you should stay away from his movie if you dislike Ronald Reagan. But if you're a fan of Reagan, you will leave the movie feeling uplifted; Quaid's performance will be enough for you to overlook many of its flaws.
The movie was well written. The filming was excellent. The actors were well cast. Dennis Quaid really poured his heart and soul into portraying Ronald Reagan. There was a great deal of history covered regarding the world during Reagan's presidency in dialogue and in photos. It was a great history lesson for younger people who weren't alive when Reagan was President. For me this movie was a positive uplifting experience. The left-controlled media tried to destroy Reagan when he was President, and now they're trying to do it again with their reviews of this movie! Don't listen to their drivel. See the movie.
To start, Dennis Quaid knocked it out of the park. His portrayal of Ronald Reagan was spot on. I was in the US Navy while Reagan was President. I was able to walk down memory lane and review history, because he made history. The portrayal of Nancy I thought was a little off in that she seemed like a nervous Nellie, no pun intended. Nancy Reagan was his rock. I loved the way Jon Voight's character acted as a part in the movie and the living narrator. It did leave out some important historical events, but they probably didn't want to stretch the movie out for 3 or 4 hours. If you don't know alot about Reagan or you are an admirer, go see it. You won't be disappointed. Especially take your kids, grandkids, friends, neighbors, etc. Whether they know anything about Reagan or not. Even those that didn't like Reagan should go see it. Notice that there are many people that gave it low marks, but none of them lefts comments. So it's probably OK to ignore those ratings.
- jgveith-20859
- Aug 30, 2024
- Permalink
The movie in itself feels like a Made-for-TV Movie of the Week. For me this has a lot to do with the narration of the film by Jon Vought as an old Soviet Spy. Not a fan of this style of movie and nothing about the movie made that experience better.
I did think that Dennis Quaid made a great Ronald Reagan, despite how strange he looked when they used Deaging tech to make him look younger and make up to make him look older, Quaid's performance in general was distracting enough to make it all work.
Though I lived through Reaganomics I'm too young to hold a real opinion of him, so I feel no sort of way about the fact that they took the thing that Reagan possibly did absolutely right in his presidency and exploited it for the best heroic effect this film can pull off, casue that's what made it a movie worthy of watching.
I did think that Dennis Quaid made a great Ronald Reagan, despite how strange he looked when they used Deaging tech to make him look younger and make up to make him look older, Quaid's performance in general was distracting enough to make it all work.
Though I lived through Reaganomics I'm too young to hold a real opinion of him, so I feel no sort of way about the fact that they took the thing that Reagan possibly did absolutely right in his presidency and exploited it for the best heroic effect this film can pull off, casue that's what made it a movie worthy of watching.
- subxerogravity
- Sep 4, 2024
- Permalink
I don't even know where to start with this. I don't think the writer or director did either though...
This is such a horrible excuse for a two and a half hour film. My ADHD was my biggest enemy to this film. I had whiplash of scene changes every 30 to 45 seconds of meaningless content, forcing me to crawl out of my skin and wiggle in my chair for the remaining time. For such a highly controversial man, this movie could've gone many different ways but this was not the one I expected.
To begin: the fake American-"Russian" narration was a completely unnecessary tear from the Princess Bride. I felt like a child being told bedtime stories about Reagan. Meaningless very short bedtime stories. "Reagan hated commies" the end. Oh wait, was that a spoiler...? Which brings me to my next point:
Zero information was relayed in this movie. I felt like I sat through a high school project that the creator cared nothing for. I take that back, they cared A LOT about horses.
All in all, I wanted a film that either shows good or bad of Reagan. A healthy balance would've been preferred, but the lack of anything meaningful here is a true disappointment for any history or film buff.
This is such a horrible excuse for a two and a half hour film. My ADHD was my biggest enemy to this film. I had whiplash of scene changes every 30 to 45 seconds of meaningless content, forcing me to crawl out of my skin and wiggle in my chair for the remaining time. For such a highly controversial man, this movie could've gone many different ways but this was not the one I expected.
To begin: the fake American-"Russian" narration was a completely unnecessary tear from the Princess Bride. I felt like a child being told bedtime stories about Reagan. Meaningless very short bedtime stories. "Reagan hated commies" the end. Oh wait, was that a spoiler...? Which brings me to my next point:
Zero information was relayed in this movie. I felt like I sat through a high school project that the creator cared nothing for. I take that back, they cared A LOT about horses.
All in all, I wanted a film that either shows good or bad of Reagan. A healthy balance would've been preferred, but the lack of anything meaningful here is a true disappointment for any history or film buff.
- anthonytangorra
- Sep 3, 2024
- Permalink
Unlike most presidents, Ronald Reagan's terms were packed with significant accomplishments to benefit team USA = its citizens. This includes his courage in recovering the USA economy from the dismal years of his predecessor. This movie does not bash any person or any party but rather highlights the uniqueness of America and the possibilities each of us may achieve or otherwise held accountable. For instance, the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. It's illegal (per our democratically elected representatives and senators) for federal employees to strike. The 11,359 employees disregarded that fact and wound up being fired as required per the laws the president was bound to enforce. Reagan molded the USA to be more than it was when he entered office. Reagan proves the USA is a winning team when it collectively and necessarily dispels socialism and communism.
Overall encouraging, the movie is a solid 'introduction' to the life and leadership of a good man and world leader. The full Ronald and Nancy Reagan story is worthy of a much longer movie.
Overall encouraging, the movie is a solid 'introduction' to the life and leadership of a good man and world leader. The full Ronald and Nancy Reagan story is worthy of a much longer movie.
First of all, I am a conservative. I like Reagan a lot, but was too young to vote for him. I voted for Trump three times. I say this to emphasize that I'm not biased against the movie because it portrays a Republican in a good light.
I just wasn't that impressed with the film as a film. Quaid himself does a really good job emulating Reagan, but otherwise the acting from most others tends to be rather stiff, and so is most of the dialogue.
It also is so overly-glowing towards Mr. Reagan that it refuses to allow even the slightest hint of a character flaw. Makes it all feel a bit saccharine. It makes his character portrayal in the film a bit boring. He's almost like a superhero. Nobody is perfect, not even Ronald Reagan.
But it's not a bad watch. Big Reagan fans should love it.
I just wasn't that impressed with the film as a film. Quaid himself does a really good job emulating Reagan, but otherwise the acting from most others tends to be rather stiff, and so is most of the dialogue.
It also is so overly-glowing towards Mr. Reagan that it refuses to allow even the slightest hint of a character flaw. Makes it all feel a bit saccharine. It makes his character portrayal in the film a bit boring. He's almost like a superhero. Nobody is perfect, not even Ronald Reagan.
But it's not a bad watch. Big Reagan fans should love it.