MovieChat Forums > Reagan (2024) Discussion > Sorry Republicans, this movie SUCKS

Sorry Republicans, this movie SUCKS

posted 6 months ago by MyPhoneAccount (312)
4 replies | jump to latest

I just saw it and it is really bad. I think a lot of Republicans are hoping for a miracle but they’ll have to keep waiting. I liked Ronald Reagan but this script and direction is pure shit. It could’ve been a film about George Washington and it would be just as awful. Compare this to Lincoln, made by Spielberg. It’s night a day.

One of the most dull, boring, safe, meandering biopics ever made. You’d have to be completely devoted to Reagan on a brainwashed level to enjoy this movie at all. I think even most Republicans will find it to be a snoozer. It’s so repetitive, the CGI is godawful, it’s full of dialogue straight out of a high school project, the acting is bad, the music is shmaltzy, and it’s just BORING. The film jumps locations every 15 seconds and it’s very hard to follow. Never once believed Dennis Quaid was Reagan, he looks and acts nothing like the real guy. The script tries to balance WAY too many characters, most of which only pop up on screen for 15 seconds.

The film is narrated by Jon Voight playing a Soviet man in the present day and this decision just doesn’t work. Also, Reagan is made out to be a flawless demigod who never made a single mistake in his life, which obviously isn’t true about anyone. The filmmakers cherry picked his best moments to talk about and blatantly lies in his favor, like crediting Reagan for freeing the Argo hostages when it’s well known Jimmy Carter did that. I was very surprised they acknowledged his Alzheimer’s because that’s about as low as the filmmakers show him. Not to mention, Scott Stapp is hilarously bad as Frank Sinatra. What were they thinking??? So yeah, sorry rightwingers, this is no Sound of Freedom.

[–] redban (6754) 6 months ago

I've heard numerous criticisms about Jon Voight. I hear his accent is laughably bad. Reading the synopsis, I'm not sure why they decided to do the whole frame narrative, with Voight's telling Reagan's story to someone.

Anyways - Scott Stapp, I hear, has a very small cameo; so I don't think there's a need to target him.

Even the most harsh reviews out there usually say that Quaid at least does well, so your criticism of him seems to be an outlier.

I get that movie is extremely pro-Reagan, which all the negative reviews say. But that's not a reason to keep me from seeing it. The movie is clearly aimed at Republicans who love Reagan

[–] MyPhoneAccount (312) 6 months ago

The way I felt about Quaid is that his performance isn’t bad, like I believed when he was happy, mad, sad, determined, etc. he’s s good actor. But I never believed his Reagan impression or his makeup, and it’s more an issue of directing than acting.

I think the movie can still be pro-reagan while also discussing his flaws. He can make mistakes while still being a hero. Look at Wolf Of Wall Street by Scorsese: Jordan Belfort is a habitual liar, a drug addict, he cheats on his wife, a bit abusive I’d say, and scams thousands of people, (not saying Reagan did any of that) yet he’s an icon who’s worshipped in the business world. But Reagan is suspicious because it doesn’t even mention some of the hiccups in his presidency, like AIDS, accusations of racism, or the CIA placing drugs in black neighborhoods. He’s depicted as a flawless human being, flawless to an unrealistic degree. Imagine a Trump movie that completely ignores Jan 6, his 34 indictments, etc. Even the pro-est of pro-Trumpers would find that peculiar, and a pro-Trump filmmaker could still put a pro-Trump spin on all those things.

[–] ewd76 (1553) 6 months ago

What do you expect from Hollyweird? Oddly enough Oliver Stone might have been a decent director for this one. He did well with Nixon.

[–] MyPhoneAccount (312) 6 months ago

I agree about Oliver Stone. Scorsese could’ve made this movie work too, though Reagan would obviously be painted in a negative light.