Reagan

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.

"Reagan", this biopic stars Dennis Quaid in the titular role. Penelope Ann Miller co-stars as Nancy Reagan. Dennis Quaid tries hard to be Reagan, but his performance is more mimicry rather than acting. Miller's performance appears much too much nice to be the steely Nancy. The rest of the cast including Jon Voight as a fictional Russian analyst are adequate but not revolutionary. And being a movie biopic, it necessarily gives short shrift to a long and varied life. And you know most of the story (although there are few portions that surprised me, so I won't spoil them here). Weakly recommended for those nostalgic for the Reagan era. 6/10.

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.

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.

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.