I saw this film, and participated in a Q&A session with the filmmaker in Somerville, Massachusetts in 1988. Being a left of center Democrat, and a Dukakis supporter, I was more than happy to see a film that would blow the lid off of the Reagan arms scandal. This film presented nothing in way of evidence and used as it's principle source of "information" Abolhasan Bani-Sadr the former president of Iran who was impeached less than a year after his election for incompetence (Even Ayatollah Khomeini signed the articles of impeachment).Consequently, Bani-Sadr fled the country as he was being targeted for assassination. Bani-Sadr settled in France where he resides to this day. He is more than willing to give interviews where he speaks of far fetched conspiracies such as claiming Reagan himself visited Tehran in 1980 to meet with Ayatollah Khomeini (??!!) and disparage his homeland.
In the case of this film, there is really no evidence at all to show that Ronald Reagan conspired with Ayatollah Khomeini to skew the 1980 presidential election. This is one of two of the film's major contentions they try to represent as a revelation. These 'Alex Jones' style conspiracy theories about the 1980 election end up being paranoiac rumormongering of the lowest sort and have only the disgraced, discredited Bani-Sadr as their sole "source".
The film's second contention centers on their having previously unreleased information about the arms for hostages scandal. The "evidence' consists of Elizabeth Montgomery's ominous narration citing events and statements which might possibly prove something if you only allow yourself to believe.
In short, the film consists of half truths, innuendos, rumors, subjective judgments, comments taken out of context, opinions, and cherry picked evidence. All of these do not the equate to hard evidence, or truth for that matter.
At the conclusion of watching this film, I realized I had waited for a smoking gun, and there was none. During our Q&A session with one of the film maker's I opined that this film was nothing more than hearsay, and that their only major source the film utilized Bani-Sadr was far from credible at best. The film maker stated that she didn't look at the film as hearsay, and at that moment another audience member interjected "It is hearsay" The filmmaker fell suddenly silent, and the remainder of the Q&A seemed to be hurried along to an quick conclusion.
I am baffled by the other poster who whines about the film not receiving mainstream media attention in 1988. There was no reason for this film to receive such attention as the film claimed to blow the lid off of the the Reagan administration as well as the then current George H.W. Bush presidential campaign, but in the end was revealed to be a tepid, long winded "What if?" piece. If the film showed a static shot of a fire hydrant for ninety minutes and then had the credits roll, the end result would be roughly the same.
The Reagan Arms for hostages scandal has been explained and examined thoroughly in other, much better, works. 'Cover Up' is an absolute waste of time and not worth watching or owning unless you happen to be a conspiracy theorist or an Elizabeth Montgomery completest.
In the case of this film, there is really no evidence at all to show that Ronald Reagan conspired with Ayatollah Khomeini to skew the 1980 presidential election. This is one of two of the film's major contentions they try to represent as a revelation. These 'Alex Jones' style conspiracy theories about the 1980 election end up being paranoiac rumormongering of the lowest sort and have only the disgraced, discredited Bani-Sadr as their sole "source".
The film's second contention centers on their having previously unreleased information about the arms for hostages scandal. The "evidence' consists of Elizabeth Montgomery's ominous narration citing events and statements which might possibly prove something if you only allow yourself to believe.
In short, the film consists of half truths, innuendos, rumors, subjective judgments, comments taken out of context, opinions, and cherry picked evidence. All of these do not the equate to hard evidence, or truth for that matter.
At the conclusion of watching this film, I realized I had waited for a smoking gun, and there was none. During our Q&A session with one of the film maker's I opined that this film was nothing more than hearsay, and that their only major source the film utilized Bani-Sadr was far from credible at best. The film maker stated that she didn't look at the film as hearsay, and at that moment another audience member interjected "It is hearsay" The filmmaker fell suddenly silent, and the remainder of the Q&A seemed to be hurried along to an quick conclusion.
I am baffled by the other poster who whines about the film not receiving mainstream media attention in 1988. There was no reason for this film to receive such attention as the film claimed to blow the lid off of the the Reagan administration as well as the then current George H.W. Bush presidential campaign, but in the end was revealed to be a tepid, long winded "What if?" piece. If the film showed a static shot of a fire hydrant for ninety minutes and then had the credits roll, the end result would be roughly the same.
The Reagan Arms for hostages scandal has been explained and examined thoroughly in other, much better, works. 'Cover Up' is an absolute waste of time and not worth watching or owning unless you happen to be a conspiracy theorist or an Elizabeth Montgomery completest.