Saw it in a packed theater. I was prepared for it to be cheesy. But it actually was well worth the ticket. It spent time on basically every stage of his life from childhood to death.. So it couldn't go into detail about anything. It covered every anecdote that I've heard about him, plus some. I'll have to look later to see if the unheard ones were accurate or embellishments. It didn't cover much about domestic policy, other than a few statements. It was 90% about his fight against the commies.

Overall, I would highly recommend. Especially if you are a patriot. Though leftists could learn a few things too.

A producer/director buddy of mine was an EP on this. Not sure if he threw in or if he just got the credit since they were filming on his turf in Oklahoma. He was EP on Silence and was instrumental in getting Killers of the Flower Moon there. The one faith based series I produced with him was cheesy but this one is supposed to be good.

aTmAg said:

---

uujm said:

---

A producer/director buddy of mine was an EP on this. Not sure if he threw in or if he just got the credit since they were filming on his turf in Oklahoma. He was EP on Silence and was instrumental in getting Killers of the Flower Moon there. The one faith based series I produced with him was cheesy but this one is supposed to be good.

---

EP = Executive Produer?

---

Extra Perrestrial.

Duh.

IMO, the funniest scene was when Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko all died back to back. They showed each at a table where they started coughing, and then it flashed to a extravagant funeral procession with people holding his portrait while they played loud sorrowful Soviet music. It was the same table and exact same funeral clip each time except the portrait they held.

I remember being a kid and a local DJ saying good news! "Yuri Andropov has finally dropped off the planet."

Quote:

---

Though leftists could learn a few things too.

---

How did they handle Iran-Contra? Was he a secret Machiavellian genius, or did they go with the "whoopsy-doodle" school of foreign intrigue?

Probably didn't want to touch it since Obama and Biden gave Iran billions of dollars instead of old weapons.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Though leftists could learn a few things too.

---

How did they handle Iran-Contra? Was he a secret Machiavellian genius, or did they go with the "whoopsy-doodle" school of foreign intrigue?

---

Why don't watch and find out?

I wish they had time to portray the actual truth that the Democrats were traitorous sacks of **** who sided with the Soviets during the cold war. What they did would be like Republicans adding an amendment in 1942 that disallowed FDR from funding the French resistance. If anything, those congressmen should have been humiliated and removed. That's why when the people learned the facts, they didn't care and why Reagan would have won in yet another landslide if he could run a 3rd time. It should be no surprise that Boland was the protege of Ted Kennedy who actually tried to make a secret deal with the Soviets against Reagan.

Ah. So you wanted the fictional hagiography on Reagan, I see.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Though leftists could learn a few things too.

---

How did they handle Iran-Contra? Was he a secret Machiavellian genius, or did they go with the "whoopsy-doodle" school of foreign intrigue?

---

The same reason the future Obama biopic will be him turning America's dilapidated inner-cities into rejuvenated havens of quality education and opportunity and not US citizens abroad being offed in drone strikes.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Probably didn't want to touch it since Obama and Biden gave Iran billions of dollars instead of old weapons.

---

May want to look up where that money came from and why it was released. Us holding it was against international law and it's still being managed for very specific purposes. Quite different from actively arming the mullah to provide money for death squads that slaughtered civilians.

So what's the truth depicted on Iran Contra?

You mean, did they portray democrats as traitors who sided with the Soviets over America?

No. Like I said, to avoid going 10 hours, they didn't have time to go into much detail on anything. They didn't even mention Afghanistan once, for example.

Since TCTTs isn't coming through with 78 tweeted reactions to the film, here's the wiki's section on the movie's critical response


On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 20% of 46 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4/10. The website's consensus reads: "While Reagan the movie undoubtedly admires Reagan the man, its cloying and glossy rendering of history flattens the 40th U.S. President into caricature." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 22 out of 100, based on 18 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable" reviews. Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale, while those surveyed by PostTrak gave it an average 4.5 out of five stars, with 77% saying they would definitely recommend it.

Bilge Ebiri of Vulture said the film was "pure hagiography, but it's not even one of those convincing hagiographies that pummel you into submission with compelling scenes that reinforce their subject's greatness." Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Kyle Smith said, "Mannered acting, dismal cinematography, clunky attempts to enhance excitement via gimmicks such as slow motion, and a musical score like a fountain of goo all serve as flashbacks to Reagan-era network schlock." Nick Schager of The Daily Beast wrote, "Regardless of how you feel about Ronald Reagan the president, most will be united in finding this biopic a preachy, plodding, graceless groaner."

The Washington Post's Ty Burr gave the film 1.5/4 stars, writing, "The faithful for whom Reagan was made aren't likely to see that it's a hagiography as rosy and shallow as anything in a Kremlin May Day parade. As pop-culture propaganda popaganda, if you will the movie's strictly for true believers. As history, it's worthless." Glenn Kenny of The New York Times deemed the film an "unabashed love letter to the former president", concluding, "It all makes for a plodding film, more curious than compelling."

Bill Newcott of The Saturday Evening Post gave the film 3/5 stars, calling it "A shamelessly adoring biopic that is single-handedly rescued from worshipful ignominy by its star, Dennis Quaid, who stubbornly chips through the script's plaster faade to offer glimpses of a man who spent his entire career concealing his complexities."

tl;dr

Wait, contemporary movie critics didn't love a movie depicting a conservative icon in a mostly positive light? Holy ****, what an unforeseeable development.

Last I'll weigh in for now until I get a chance to see it and judge for myself.

Most US presidents, whether lauded by the left or right, were leaders with flaws and shortcomings who both accomplished a lot during their term(s) and made some mistakes or were led to faulty conclusions by their cabinet. Also, high levels of politics filter out normal people. To even approach the office of the POTUS you almost certainly have to be pretty damn ambitious and willing to set your moral compass aside at times for political convenience. That's why I think you could easily make a movie making our last 10 POTUS look like absolute saints or absolute villains, depending on what you emphasize or marginalize. I think to spend a lot of money on a political biopic trying to capture objective reality of most presidents will not end up playing well to their fans OR their haters. It makes business sense for a studio to create a film like this which focuses on the positive nature of a guy that millions of Americans adore, even if it isn't the full truth.

aTmAg said:

---

You mean, did they portray democrats as traitors who sided with the Soviets over America?

No. Like I said, to avoid going 10 hours, they didn't have time to go into much detail on anything. They didn't even mention Afghanistan once, for example.

---

Gotcha. So they didn't fully discuss Reagan and his administration selling Iran weapons to fund death squads in Central America?

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

You mean, did they portray democrats as traitors who sided with the Soviets over America?

No. Like I said, to avoid going 10 hours, they didn't have time to go into much detail on anything. They didn't even mention Afghanistan once, for example.

---

Gotcha. So they didn't fully discuss Reagan and his administration selling Iran weapons to fund death squads in Central America?

---

User profile checks out

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

You mean, did they portray democrats as traitors who sided with the Soviets over America?

No. Like I said, to avoid going 10 hours, they didn't have time to go into much detail on anything. They didn't even mention Afghanistan once, for example.

---

Gotcha. So they didn't fully discuss Reagan and his administration selling Iran weapons to fund death squads in Central America?

---

Death squads? There were "death squads" on both sides. It was an ugly war of reprisals. And similar to what is going on in Israel today, the leftist "human rights" organizations seemed very keen on finding examples of atrocities by the Contras while ignoring those of the Sandinistas. There is a reason the Sandinistas got their asses kicked in the election of 1990. Much to the leftists' chagrin. And BTW, no system has caused more death in human history than communism. Yet your party seems to long for it.

And Reagan was told by intel (including Israeli intelligence) that the Iranians that we were selling weapons to were moderates within the government that were looking to take power from the radicals. Not to guys loyal to Khomeini. That turned out to be untrue. The movie didn't show any Iranians or Contras or any of that. It focused on the speeches he made at the time and his and Nancy's relationship behind the scene.

I saw it on Sunday night and really enjoyed it. One of Quaid's best performances IMO.

Several recognizable faces in the cast - two of whom were actually in Air Force One so that was kind of a fun callback. If you're a child of the 80's and 90's, you'll see some familiar faces.

They touch on Reagan's childhood, which really shaped who he was as a person, and his early Hollywood years. But it's primarily a Cold War focused biopic. I liked the angle they took of telling the story from the Soviet perspective. The sequence where they go through each Soviet leader dying had a bit of a 'Death of Stalin' feel to it and added some humor. But I think it portrays Gorbechav favorably.

I was impressed with the way they were able to place "Quaid as Reagan" into the video sequences of the debates with Carter and Mondale and some of the other real footage. There are times when it's hard to tell whether they were using original footage or not.

The ending was very touching. It reminded me of the final scenes of 'American Sniper'.

No, it will not win any awards. It hits on some touchy, awkward, history with Hollywood so I doubt the establishment will receive this well. But in an era of 'shock jock' political films like 'Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter', 'W' and 'Vice' - I think Reagan stands out as one of the more accurate modern political biopics I've ever seen. They don't happen very often, typically these are turned into a mini-series. But for an actual Presidential biopic in theaters, I thought they did good job - and I doubt they had the biggest budget in the world for this one either.

It was nice to see something that provides a little hope and the idea that you can make a positive impact - no matter how flawed you are or how old you are.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Since TCTTs isn't coming through with 78 tweeted reactions to the film, here's the wiki's section on the movie's critical response


On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 20% of 46 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4/10. The website's consensus reads: "While Reagan the movie undoubtedly admires Reagan the man, its cloying and glossy rendering of history flattens the 40th U.S. President into caricature."

---

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the Trailers and synopsis I can easily see this criticism being true. When you choose to cover almost the entire lifetime of someone who achieved as much as Reagan and shove it into a single movie I'm not sure you could end up with much else. There just isn't enough time to get into the nitty gritty details of everything.

Like I said.. given the run length, I don't think they could have done a better job. They really need to do a 10 part miniseries to make it perfect.

good stuff in this one. first half was a little slow, second half was excellent. Dennis Quaid and Jon Voight were superb. Bonus points for a Scott Stapp appearance and a full-on 80's montage to the tune of Genesis.

Gigem314 said:

---

I was impressed with the way they were able to place "Quaid as Reagan" into the video sequences of the debates with Carter and Mondale and some of the other real footage. There are times when it's hard to tell whether they were using original footage or not.

---

The cinematography was great, really gave the feel of the era. So difficult to tell what was real footage and what wasn't.