Reagan: Un presidente sotto i riflettori

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 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?

"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.

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.

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.