Avis des utilisateurs

The film Reagan (2024) offers a largely authentic portrayal of Ronald Reagan's life, despite some minor historical inaccuracies, such as the misrepresentation of Margaret Thatcher's stance on German reunification. In reality, Thatcher was wary of a strong, unified Germany, fearing it could destabilize the European balance of power. This well-documented skepticism is overlooked in the film, which instead presents her as a firm supporter of reunification. However, apart from such inconsistencies, the film does an admirable job of capturing Reagan's character, leadership, and personal struggles.

One of the film's strongest elements is the acting. The lead portrayal of Ronald Reagan is both nuanced and convincing, capturing his charisma, warmth, and unwavering optimism. The actor embodies Reagan's distinct mannerisms and speech patterns without turning them into a mere impersonation. His ability to transition from Reagan's Hollywood days to his time in the White House feels natural and engaging. Likewise, the supporting cast delivers strong performances, particularly in the roles of Nancy Reagan and key political figures of the era. The chemistry between Reagan and his closest advisors is well-executed, highlighting the complexities of his presidency.

The film's atmosphere is another major strength. The cinematography effectively immerses the audience in the different time periods of Reagan's life, from his early Hollywood career to the tense Cold War negotiations. The use of lighting and period-accurate set designs helps create a sense of authenticity, making viewers feel as though they are witnessing history unfold. The political tension of the 1980s is well-captured, with key moments, such as Reagan's negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev, depicted with gripping intensity. Additionally, the film manages to balance Reagan's political career with his personal life, offering a well-rounded view of the man behind the presidency.

One particularly intriguing aspect of the film is its handling of the intelligence community's role during the Cold War. A mysterious character, who is seen interrogating a retired KGB operative, adds an element of suspense and raises questions about hidden narratives behind Reagan's foreign policy. This subplot, while not fully explored, leaves the audience wondering: Who is this figure conducting the interrogation, and what deeper secrets about Reagan's Cold War strategies remain undisclosed?

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.

The user reviews for this movie tend to reflect the political leanings of the viewers. Having said that, as a Reagan fan who began my adult life as he came to office, this movie leaves much to be desired. The writing (including stilted dialog), cinematography, and production values are substandard. Same with the acting, though Dennis Quaid did an admirable job of portraying the president. Aside from that, the audience would be much better served if the biopic had not been so ambitious. A life as interesting and impactful as Reagan's suffers from a cradle-to-grave treatment. It would be much better if only a slice of his life had been told, such as was the case with the excellent Steven Spielberg film "Lincoln." At most, the tale could have been limited to his presidency, or an examination of one part of his administration, such as his negotiations with Gorbachev that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

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.

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.

For whatever reason, the film is narrated by a Cold War Russian official? He uses a voice over which makes it laughable. Said official apparently scouted and followed Reagan all his life, knowing he would bring the end to Soviet Communism. Okay? The film is portrayed with some very biased Republican sympathy. Hence, many actors in the film are a pro-Republican themselves. Dennis Quaid did a descent job, but his roll kept being overshadowed by inaccuracies and cheezie "rah-rah" film making you see on the Hallmark Channel. I can see why the film was shelved and not more widely released to theaters and bigger audiences.

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.

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 couldn't believe how blatantly propagandistic this movie is. It inferred that most union organizers during the '50s were Soviet infiltrators (with no mention of the pain McCarthyism caused people in Hollywood) ... that the '60s protestors were sympathetic with the Kremlin's cause (WTH?) ... and that AIDS activists in the '80s were destroyers of Reagan's legacy instead of people fighting to save their own lives.

The film also glossed over the Iran Contra Affair as Democrats trying to destroy Reagan. Not even his personal life was believable. His babies with Jane Wyatt were shown briefly and then his kids (who had legitimate complaints over how he and Nancy put their love over them) were never seen again.

The film did not build a strong case for why the Soviet Union was so evil during Reagan's presidential era or why his betrayal of the fair-dealing Gorbachev for political gain was acceptable.

Reagan arguably had good qualities and did some good things that could have been spotlighted while accurately showing the results of some of his monstrous actions. This was an opportunity wasted to tell his true story. Instead, it makes me think less of all involved including Ronald Reagan.

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.

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.

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....

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 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.

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.

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.

First off, setting politics aside, Reagan is an awful film. It looks and feels like a made-for-TV except with a 25 million dollar budget with a stamp of approval from movie executives. It's porn for conservatives and anyone who's conservative adjacent. Clumsy to the point of laughter, this ineffectual biopic reduces the titular 40th president to a flat one-dimensional character. From the embarrassing framing narrative to the newspaper reel insert that looked like something out of iMovie, this hits the tired clichés and rookie floundering blocks. The message is hamfisted, and the camerawork is beyond incompetent. The performances are dreadful as well. Dennis Quaid is doing an SNL impersonation the entire time. One of the most puzzling things they do is they cast him as young Reagan. Penelope Ann Miller thinks she's going to win an Academy Award for one of the most bizarre performances of the year. Jon Voight seems like he's going to die in front of our eyes, and the de-aging they do him and the Russian accent he does is terrible. I knew I wasn't going to like this, but hoo boy, after watching the movie, it was worse than I had imagined. Sometimes, it was dull, and other times, it was like watching a car crash. Also, there's no reason for this to be over 2 hours.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

It was a fine movie, but honestly a little too feel-good sometime with very little stakes. It sorta felt like a more dramatic version of a hall mark special. There was nothing really inherently wrong with the movie, just that it was a tad boring at times.

Also, they tell the story from a narrators point of view, and I kinda felt like the choice to do that was a little needless. It didn't add anything to the story, and kinda just bogged the whole experience down.

I usually enjoy Dennis Quaid's performances. He's not the best actor, but I always find his performances endearing and entertaining. I'm not so sure he was the right pick for Reagan. He looks the part of course, but he doesn't really disappear into the role. He also does this thing with his voice that is meant to sound like Reagan, but it's a bit overacted and distracting.

I would recommend it as a one time watch if there's nothing else to watch and people want a casual filler movie. Just don't expect to be blown away or anything.