Reagan

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.

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.

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.

"Reagan" tries to do too much, and as a result, offers too little. To do a "womb to tomb" biopic in just over 2 hours about a man with such a storied life was a near impossible feat. This would've been better suited for a limited series on Netflix perhaps. The decision to structure it with narration from a fictional Russian spy studying Reagan was also a head-scratcher.

Reagan was the President I grew up with (7-15 years old during his terms) so I remember him fondly. However in the years since I've come to understand his flaws, such as his bullishness on SDI (shown, but only in a positive manner), his mishandling of the AIDS crisis (mentioned once in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it montage) and his lying about the Iran-Contra affair (big lead up to this, only to brush it away as an oopsie). The film wants to keep the rose-tinted glasses on though, and refuses to paint a well-rounded portrait of the man; he's simply Saint Ronald here.

Quaid acquits himself pretty well, especially when recreating speeches (the famous Berlin speech is a knockout). His scenes with Gorbachev are also very well done. I didn't buy Miller as Nancy though. She seemed a bit too "flighty."

Overall, I give this a solid bipartisan 6 and wish it'd shown Reagan, both the good and the bad, in a longer length format with perhaps a bit more inspired direction.

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.