Reagan: Un presidente sotto i riflettori

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.