Reagan: Un presidente sotto i riflettori

"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.

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.

"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 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.

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?