Ronald Reagan

This film is very bias! It was created by a liberal filmmaker who is trying to make Reagan look horrible. It's a terrible documentary.

It skips around things. The film looks at a couple things Reagan did bad as president and it does not even look at all his success he had especially with the economy in fact it actually skews the facts and misleads people a lot. For example: I noticed towards the end of the documentary that there is footage put in there of a news reporter saying something like "7 million more Americans are living in poverty since Reagan took office."

Look up the official poverty rate numbers and you'll see when Reagan took office the poverty rate was at 14%. The next year it was at 15.2% due to the bad recession that had started right before Reagan took office and the filmmaker never even mentions the recession. When Reagan left office the poverty rate was at 13%.

So the poverty rate was at 14% went up to 15.2% and was at 13% when Reagan left office. The filmmaker clearly adds in the news report trying to skew facts making it look like the economy failed under Reagan. IT IS VERY MISLEADING TO PEOPLE.

You should be ashamed of yourself Eugene Jarecki. You are not a respectable filmmaker! There is much more I can call you out on but don't fell like typing anymore.

The first half of "Reagan" is fairly objective, to disguise the fact that this is simply another predictable hit-piece on Reagan, and on conservatism in general.

All of the seemingly positive narrators in the first half turn out to be very anti-Reagan in the second half.

If the program had ended as it began, with a positive characterization of Reagan, you could almost (but not quite) argue that it was fair. Instead, the second half is obviously there to tear down every positive image of Reagan that is slyly portrayed in the first half. The first half is only there to help tear down every positive image ("myth") about Reagan, in the second half.

Pick any Democratic president of the past 100 years--Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt, or even Carter, and you cannot imagine any media outlet producing a negative hit piece like this. But you expect it when the subject is a Republican president (so you should not be surprised or disappointed).

The best endorsement of Reagan's success, popularity, and achievements is the left's tireless and relentless effort, even after his death, to destroy him.

A friend in Paris, France, and fellow filmmaker sent me a copy of this new Reagan documentary. Not a great fan of Reagan or his presidency, I set it aside.

My friend persisted and pushed me to watch it. I finally did. The film begins with the death of Ronald Reagan after an extended bout with Alzheimer's disease. Then, it returns to his life, starting with his childhood and covering every step of his career from radio announcer to actor to union president and on to his dazzling political career, one that was not easy any step along the way.

It is one of the most extraordinary documentaries I have ever seen, the revelation is not in the massive amount of data packed into this film (Michael Moore, take note, please) but its beautifully organized objectivity and most of all, its subtext, that makes a powerful statement about the impact, often world-changing, of the power of the illusion of ideas. This illusion can create and destroy quickly and with great and lasting power.

It is recommended not just to those interested in a fine example of documentary filmmaking but for historians interested in objectivity, especially so in the life of the 40th president of the United States.

As an important aside, I have had my feelings about Ron Reagan, Jr. (the president's son, who works in the media) confirmed… He is a bright, deep thinker who doubtless transcends his own father's intellect and contact with humanity.

This documentary was shown with a leftist viewpoint. Since I was born in 1949 and lived through 12 presidents I have more knowledge gained through experience than those who read about things. The country almost went bust during Carter's administration due to his fiscal policies and lack of respect throughout the world. President Reagan brought back the United States with his tax policies and strong defense policy. The words that basically said it all was that if you tax the workers and give money to those who don't work, people won't work. That is exactly what we've created today with free health care, free housing and free food. Granted, the War On Drugs was a failure just as the War On Poverty was as is the War On Terror. All in all, Reagan was a great leader of the United States. He was at least as good as Eisenhower. The country flourished during their presidencies.

Ronald Reagan has become such a mythologised figure by the American right that it's hard for a documentary to present a balanced view. Moreover, Americans in general tend to treat their Presidents with a respect that is wholly absent from British politics; although Eugene Jarecki's documentary is actually not bad in challenging the myths (both that everything Reagan did was good, and also that he did everything that has been attributed to him), in it's tone, it can't help but add to them. In fact, it's pretty soft on his early years, and fails to mention that as Governor of California, his trick was really to talk like a conservative but to spend like only liberals were supposed to (although it concedes the same point with regard to his subsequent presidency). On the presidency itself, Jarecki's film delivers a harder verdict, as the critics are far more precise than the admirers, who can only defend Reagan through vague eulogy. It's a bit odd, however, that the final verdict on Reagan's years, and American society, is given by a former military officer who seems no more entitled to pass the definitive opinion than any of the rest of us. One interesting thing for me was to see that Reagan was, at his peak, a genuinely accomplished performer - dismissed as senile by his enemies perhaps before he truly was, he comes across as shrewder than popular perception allows, even if one can dispute the value of his legacy.