MovieChat Forums > Reagan (2024) Discussion > Just saw it, my thoughts

Just saw it, my thoughts

posted 3 months ago by redban (6194)
2 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] Cristianos (298) 3 months ago

I, 100 percent, agree with your review. Quaid was decent as Reagan, but Penelope Ann Miller was even better as Nancy Reagan. I was also annoyed by the propaganda aspects when all of sudden, everyone stops doing what they are doing and stand mesmerized by Reagan's televised public speaking. It was appropriate for the "tear down this wall" speech, but was wearing thin after it had been used twice for the "Time for Choosing" speech and Reagan's closing 1980 debate speech.

The movie would have been better if it had explored Reagan's flaws, and was condensed to just his presidency. I was shocked Vice President George H. W. Bush was reduced to a blink-and-miss cameo. For the uninformed, Secretary of State George Shultz seemed more like Reagan's right-hand man based on this film. That said, Reagan's character shines through with his humor and forcefulness. It's not terrible but could have been better. 5/10.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 3 months ago

i appreciate and respect your honest opinion about the movie. i did not like this film at all but I see where you are coming from with the pros and cons.

i think Quaid WOULD have been great under a different, better director. at times he does transform into Reagan pretty well, like the ingredients were all there, but I think his makeup is pretty wonky at times (sometimes he has this fixed, unnaturally wide smile like Jack Nicholson's Joker) and the script doesn't give him much to do besides be stoic. he is a good actor in general though and he is the one thing that carries the movie a bit.

the pro-reagan stuff was so hammy. I'm not Republican nor am I a Reaganite, though I also wasn't alive during his presidency and my family weren't American, so I don't really care. i think a reagan movie could be cool, but the idea to portray him as a flawless, genius angelic saint is the single worst element of the movie. he cant clip his fingernails without the world being inspired! the montage you mention of the barber stopping mid-shave to look in awe at reagan's tv speech was SO RIDICULOUS and the movie is FULL of crap like that. that would've been obnoxious no matter what president we're talking about. in reality, reagan was quite a divisive man, like most presidents are, and it would've been cool to show some of the more questionable things he did. like, the real guy supplied a lot of the world with weapons, including my home country, and had accusations of being very racist. he also had the most corrupt administration of any president up until that point. all that stuff could've been explored. the decision to outright ignore it and paint any anti-reaganite as a blind commie libtard feels disingenuous and propagandic, like, how DARE you defy Lord Reagan!

And yes, the film is horribly edited and is incredibly boring. it just flashes random stuff about reagan's life at you in cliffnotes with an extreme pro-bias towards the source material. I learned very little about him.