Let me get right to the point: The problem with this movie is its utter lack of dramatic content. The story of Ronald and Nancy Reagan is so well known that this movie cannot offer any surprises. Further, the movie mocks Ronald and Nancy Reagan for being who they were - an actor and his devoted wife, and offers a simplistic portrayal of Mr. Reagan as being part Jed Clampett and part Gomer Pyle. What the movie glosses over is Ronald Reagan's career - college graduate, a Captain in the U. S. Army, the president of one of the most influential labor organizations in the entertainment industry, Governor of California and President of the United States. Pretty good resume for a small-town guy.
48 Reviews
What's the problem?
preppy-36 December 2003
The Republicans REALLY overreacted to this. And CBS should be ashamed of itself for cancelling it. Three cheers for Showtime for showing it multiple times (albeit an edited version).
This almost 3 hour mini starts with Ronald Reagan's (James Brolin) first meeting with Nancy Davis (Judy Davis). It follows them all the way up to 1988 when Reagan left office. Most people were afraid this would be a hatchet job--it really isn't. Reagan comes off as a nice, friendly guy who never really wanted to be President. Nancy does come off as loud, abrasive and controlling...but the movie makes it clear she's acting that way because she loves her husband so much. Also chalk it up to Brolins' and Davis' excellent performances for driving that across.
It doesn't sidestep some of Reagan's mistakes--his "trees cause pollution" remark is there as is the horrendous Iran-Contra disaster. However his abortion policies aren't even brought up and the AIDS sequence was edited down--Nancy was all for AIDS treatment, Reagan said "They live in sin so let them die in sin"--it's now cut from the film. Also the treatment of their children is interesting--the kids from his first wife are barely in there--Ron Reagan Jr. is made into a saint (he wasn't) and Patti Davis comes across as a loud, shreiking monster (she wasn't). Also Nancy is shown as an uncaring mother.
All in all, this seems like a pretty accurate portryal. It is too long but it's saved by great performances from the entire supporting actors--especially the actress who plays Patti Davis and Zeljko Ivanek as Mike Deaver.
Next time the Republicians might want to VIEW something before attacking it.
This almost 3 hour mini starts with Ronald Reagan's (James Brolin) first meeting with Nancy Davis (Judy Davis). It follows them all the way up to 1988 when Reagan left office. Most people were afraid this would be a hatchet job--it really isn't. Reagan comes off as a nice, friendly guy who never really wanted to be President. Nancy does come off as loud, abrasive and controlling...but the movie makes it clear she's acting that way because she loves her husband so much. Also chalk it up to Brolins' and Davis' excellent performances for driving that across.
It doesn't sidestep some of Reagan's mistakes--his "trees cause pollution" remark is there as is the horrendous Iran-Contra disaster. However his abortion policies aren't even brought up and the AIDS sequence was edited down--Nancy was all for AIDS treatment, Reagan said "They live in sin so let them die in sin"--it's now cut from the film. Also the treatment of their children is interesting--the kids from his first wife are barely in there--Ron Reagan Jr. is made into a saint (he wasn't) and Patti Davis comes across as a loud, shreiking monster (she wasn't). Also Nancy is shown as an uncaring mother.
All in all, this seems like a pretty accurate portryal. It is too long but it's saved by great performances from the entire supporting actors--especially the actress who plays Patti Davis and Zeljko Ivanek as Mike Deaver.
Next time the Republicians might want to VIEW something before attacking it.
Terrific movie, totally SCREWED
bkdement2 January 2005
Well it's true enough that people decided not to watch this film, which is clear enough from reading their absurdly uninformed opinions about it.
There was an incredible spread of lies about this movie, all published based on a completely unrelated rough draft of an entirely different screenplay, which were quickly distributed via the internet to anyone who enjoys getting fired up. That's a lot of people, and yes, most of them host television shows with screaming people on them. Thanks to the internet, the "American People" did not choose not to support "The Reagans." No, they chose to be prey to brainwashing which was based on lies about a film which had not yet been completed, assembled in the editing room, or therefor seen by anyone including it's own director.
And it IS censorship which is caused by official segments of the Republican party organizing protests and threatening CBS, resulting in a fantastic film being dumped in the grand name of ignorance and hero worship. Apparently three hours of actual study is too much to ask of "the American people" these days.
I have seen this film several times, because out of curiosity I purchased a copy. Now of course we don't know what Nancy Reagan said during downtime at home when her husband was running for office. But if we had to limit our films and television shows to dialogue that can be 100% verified, then we are all doomed to watch nothing but "Survivor" and "The Surreal Life" for the rest of our lives.
Furthermore, anyone with a brain should know that no one, no not even Nancy Reagan, can be pleasant and happy all the time. You watch someone when they know they're in front of a camera and they will not necessarily show you the part of their personality that got them there. Truly objective and humane people would appreciate this film BECAUSE of the negative moments, and the positive ones. I would much rather watch a brilliantly-acted and produced film that seems to be balanced and believable than a live-action cartoon featuring Ronald Reagan as the protagonist.
People who are sick and dying deserve to be respected, surely. However, it must be understood that a film takes time and the producers of this movie certainly could not have decided to time the release of this one just before his death. Is anyone really crazy enough to believe that they had this in mind? Is there a stupider idea for a film director to have? Oh, I know, let's mutilate the reputation of the one of the most beloved American presidents in our history just as he's slowly dying of a dreaded disease. And let's not forget to also destroy the image of his wife Nancy, before airing our expose on Mother Theresa. Yup, that must've been their motivation.
It reminds me of everyone accusing Ellen DeGeneres of coming out in order to bolster her career....and look at all of the people who followed her lead because of the great effect it has on a person's career.
There was an incredible spread of lies about this movie, all published based on a completely unrelated rough draft of an entirely different screenplay, which were quickly distributed via the internet to anyone who enjoys getting fired up. That's a lot of people, and yes, most of them host television shows with screaming people on them. Thanks to the internet, the "American People" did not choose not to support "The Reagans." No, they chose to be prey to brainwashing which was based on lies about a film which had not yet been completed, assembled in the editing room, or therefor seen by anyone including it's own director.
And it IS censorship which is caused by official segments of the Republican party organizing protests and threatening CBS, resulting in a fantastic film being dumped in the grand name of ignorance and hero worship. Apparently three hours of actual study is too much to ask of "the American people" these days.
I have seen this film several times, because out of curiosity I purchased a copy. Now of course we don't know what Nancy Reagan said during downtime at home when her husband was running for office. But if we had to limit our films and television shows to dialogue that can be 100% verified, then we are all doomed to watch nothing but "Survivor" and "The Surreal Life" for the rest of our lives.
Furthermore, anyone with a brain should know that no one, no not even Nancy Reagan, can be pleasant and happy all the time. You watch someone when they know they're in front of a camera and they will not necessarily show you the part of their personality that got them there. Truly objective and humane people would appreciate this film BECAUSE of the negative moments, and the positive ones. I would much rather watch a brilliantly-acted and produced film that seems to be balanced and believable than a live-action cartoon featuring Ronald Reagan as the protagonist.
People who are sick and dying deserve to be respected, surely. However, it must be understood that a film takes time and the producers of this movie certainly could not have decided to time the release of this one just before his death. Is anyone really crazy enough to believe that they had this in mind? Is there a stupider idea for a film director to have? Oh, I know, let's mutilate the reputation of the one of the most beloved American presidents in our history just as he's slowly dying of a dreaded disease. And let's not forget to also destroy the image of his wife Nancy, before airing our expose on Mother Theresa. Yup, that must've been their motivation.
It reminds me of everyone accusing Ellen DeGeneres of coming out in order to bolster her career....and look at all of the people who followed her lead because of the great effect it has on a person's career.
What's all the fuss about?
Solo411412 July 2004
Well, I watched this last night for the first time, AFTER all of the hooplah over Reagan's death and the retrospectives on his life. Given the reactions that some people have had, I was expecting a MUCH more negative portrayal of the Reagans.
Now, I'll admit, what you do see isn't pretty in many sequences. As governor, he is shown to be reactionary (which, well, he was really). As president, he is portrayed as out of touch, and rather doddering in his second term. Throughout the film, Reagan is portrayed as easily manipulated, prone to delegating as much as possible, and as not wanting to take on quite the responsibility required by the job of chief executive, be it at the state or national level. The personal life also has its dark moments where he's depicted as an absentee father.
Nancy doesn't get much better treatment, and in some ways gets the brunt of the criticism. She is depicted as shrewd, conniving, nasty at times, manipulative, overly concerned with society, a lousy parent, and as first lady of California and the United States, rather a spendthrift.
This is all what you've probably heard about in most of the reviews you've read or heard about this miniseries. The criticism of the Reagans is severe in these respects, and some may not see it as fair and balanced, largely because the film does downplay Reagan's political successes. Again, you've heard this all before, so it shouldn't surprise you.
What most of the reviews I saw didn't mention, however, was the humanizing aspects of the film. Yes, the Reagans are shown as flawed individuals and perhaps not the people you'd want most in positions of power. But, the film also shows their compassionate sides, and Ron and Nancy's devotion to and love for each other. In the political arena, Reagan is given his due as a master communicator, which, regardless of on which side of the political spectrum you may fall, you have to admit. He did make gaffes (IE: the Bitburg visit and the "trees cause polution" comment), but his knack for communicating an idea or inspiring notion to the public, as well as his political shrewdness is given fair attention.
Additionally, even though the film shows their flaws, both Ron and Nancy are shown as people with genuine compassion. Nancy's concern regarding the AIDS epidemic, and Ron's entire political career being motivated by a desire to save people (even when he was making bad decisions). In this sense, I think the film is reasonably balanced. Yes, it shows the flaws of the Reagans, but much like the man himself, you can walk away from the film hating his politics, but still liking the man.
So, if you're expecting, say, Farenheit 9/11 or something along those lines, you'll be disappointed. If you're expecting a glossy, all sweetness and sunshine retrospective, you'll also be disappointed. If you're looking for a reasonably interesting dramatization of the life of one of America's more interesting couples, though, it's worth a rental.
Now, I'll admit, what you do see isn't pretty in many sequences. As governor, he is shown to be reactionary (which, well, he was really). As president, he is portrayed as out of touch, and rather doddering in his second term. Throughout the film, Reagan is portrayed as easily manipulated, prone to delegating as much as possible, and as not wanting to take on quite the responsibility required by the job of chief executive, be it at the state or national level. The personal life also has its dark moments where he's depicted as an absentee father.
Nancy doesn't get much better treatment, and in some ways gets the brunt of the criticism. She is depicted as shrewd, conniving, nasty at times, manipulative, overly concerned with society, a lousy parent, and as first lady of California and the United States, rather a spendthrift.
This is all what you've probably heard about in most of the reviews you've read or heard about this miniseries. The criticism of the Reagans is severe in these respects, and some may not see it as fair and balanced, largely because the film does downplay Reagan's political successes. Again, you've heard this all before, so it shouldn't surprise you.
What most of the reviews I saw didn't mention, however, was the humanizing aspects of the film. Yes, the Reagans are shown as flawed individuals and perhaps not the people you'd want most in positions of power. But, the film also shows their compassionate sides, and Ron and Nancy's devotion to and love for each other. In the political arena, Reagan is given his due as a master communicator, which, regardless of on which side of the political spectrum you may fall, you have to admit. He did make gaffes (IE: the Bitburg visit and the "trees cause polution" comment), but his knack for communicating an idea or inspiring notion to the public, as well as his political shrewdness is given fair attention.
Additionally, even though the film shows their flaws, both Ron and Nancy are shown as people with genuine compassion. Nancy's concern regarding the AIDS epidemic, and Ron's entire political career being motivated by a desire to save people (even when he was making bad decisions). In this sense, I think the film is reasonably balanced. Yes, it shows the flaws of the Reagans, but much like the man himself, you can walk away from the film hating his politics, but still liking the man.
So, if you're expecting, say, Farenheit 9/11 or something along those lines, you'll be disappointed. If you're expecting a glossy, all sweetness and sunshine retrospective, you'll also be disappointed. If you're looking for a reasonably interesting dramatization of the life of one of America's more interesting couples, though, it's worth a rental.
A Dysfunctional Family
rmax30482330 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS.
"The Reagans" is the right title. The movie has less to do with Reagan's political career (and doesn't even touch his acting) than it does with familial relationships, mainly the bond between Reagan ("Ronnie") and Nancy ("Mommy Pants"). We get to know something about the kids too, although I frankly got some of them mixed up at times, since they're played by different actors at different ages. Of the political staff I have a clear image only of Mike Deever (Ivanek). The other actors look nothing like the actual people they are playing, which may not be a problem for younger viewers who never heard of Jimmy Carter let alone Alexander Haig.
I found it kind of surprising actually. No one is painted as thoroughly evil, but every character in the drama is flawed in one obvious way or another. The reason I found it surprising is not that it doesn't ring true. After all, everyone is flawed in some way, except for me.
The main reason I found it surprising is that this is a movie chiefly about living people, people who know the meaning of the word "litigation." I'm truly surprised anyone could get away with something like this -- that is to say, something other than a hagiography. The same thing that makes the movie surprising is what makes it less believable than it should be.
What I mean is -- this is a script with dialogue, some of it reproducing casual conversational exchanges from forty or fifty years ago, and some of them rather nasty. But who can remember what he or she said over lunch on, say, December 12th, 1958? Here are a few snippets of dialogue I made notes of, just from the first half hour. I'd have written down more of them from the remaining two and a half hours but I'm not being paid enough.
Nancy's mother: "Hollywood is nothing more than wall-to-wall Jews, queers," and something else. Same source: "You weren't cut out to be a housewife. Kids are little monsters." Same source: "We just love it in Phoenix. All we do is drink martinis, go shopping for jewelry, play golf, and sit around the pool." After a party: Nancy,"There was a lot of money there tonight." Ronnie: "Yeah. I've never seen so many rich people." Nancy: "And old money." At one point, Ronnie says: "I'm an actor, not a politician." When the family moves into the governor's mansion in Sacramento, a stately Victorian, Nancy's mother looks around with distaste and says, "You're not going to live in THIS relic, are you?" Nancy's father: "It's a firetrap." Nancy: And the neighborhood is just terrible, and the schools are no good."
I just find it hard to believe that these words are accurate. Words "to that effect", yes -- whatever that means. But those specific words?
Of course the words that were spoken in public are recorded for all time on videotape or paper somewhere, so there's no reason to doubt them. On the other hand, public speech from politicians is mostly blather and not very informative.
So, anyway, how do the Reagans come across? Rather disjointedly. It's not a particularly good script. Reagan's character is at least written as consistent. He's a nice guy who keeps having recurring nightmares about trying to save people. (Who said that?) He hates arguments and doesn't like to say no to anyone and he never gets angry. (Nothing in there about shouting, "Mister Chairman, I PAID for this microphone," or, "Mister Gorbachev -- tear down this wall!") Nancy, though, is turned into a snooty bitch both by the script and by Judy Davis. Nothing is good enough for her, including the White House china selections bought over the years by Mrs. Truman, Mrs. Taft, etc. "We might as well use paper plates!" She truly loves Ronnie -- no question -- but aside from that she is given only one touch of humanity. She tries to talk to Ronnie about AIDS when her beloved hairdresser dies of the disease. (He's not interested.) But this is inconsistent with her character as written because she is nowhere shown with even a hint of a social conscience.
Brolin does a professional job as Reagan, and Davis swishes through her part with a vengeance. Every other exit line is a snotty comment. The kids are hard to tell apart except for Patti, who has guts, and the grown Ronnie who has become a ballet dancer of all things. "Nothing wrong with being a dancer," Reagan tries to convince himself and the press, "Look at Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly -- real men." And Patti has a good moment watching her Mom on TV during the "Just Say No To Drugs" campaign. "Where were you THEN?" asks Patti, taking a big toke off her joint. Actually, there's quite a bit of humor in this longish film. After Reagan's bombshell of a Star Wars speech, a reporter calls Deever "for comment," and asks, "You know where he got the idea? Ever hear of 'Murder in the Air'?", and the reporter looks down at a VHS of the old Reagan movie. Says Deever, "Great flick."
Since I don't want to run out of space I will simply recommend watching it. I'm not sure I'd want to see it again, but it's a real curiosity. Gossips may get more out of it than I did.
"The Reagans" is the right title. The movie has less to do with Reagan's political career (and doesn't even touch his acting) than it does with familial relationships, mainly the bond between Reagan ("Ronnie") and Nancy ("Mommy Pants"). We get to know something about the kids too, although I frankly got some of them mixed up at times, since they're played by different actors at different ages. Of the political staff I have a clear image only of Mike Deever (Ivanek). The other actors look nothing like the actual people they are playing, which may not be a problem for younger viewers who never heard of Jimmy Carter let alone Alexander Haig.
I found it kind of surprising actually. No one is painted as thoroughly evil, but every character in the drama is flawed in one obvious way or another. The reason I found it surprising is not that it doesn't ring true. After all, everyone is flawed in some way, except for me.
The main reason I found it surprising is that this is a movie chiefly about living people, people who know the meaning of the word "litigation." I'm truly surprised anyone could get away with something like this -- that is to say, something other than a hagiography. The same thing that makes the movie surprising is what makes it less believable than it should be.
What I mean is -- this is a script with dialogue, some of it reproducing casual conversational exchanges from forty or fifty years ago, and some of them rather nasty. But who can remember what he or she said over lunch on, say, December 12th, 1958? Here are a few snippets of dialogue I made notes of, just from the first half hour. I'd have written down more of them from the remaining two and a half hours but I'm not being paid enough.
Nancy's mother: "Hollywood is nothing more than wall-to-wall Jews, queers," and something else. Same source: "You weren't cut out to be a housewife. Kids are little monsters." Same source: "We just love it in Phoenix. All we do is drink martinis, go shopping for jewelry, play golf, and sit around the pool." After a party: Nancy,"There was a lot of money there tonight." Ronnie: "Yeah. I've never seen so many rich people." Nancy: "And old money." At one point, Ronnie says: "I'm an actor, not a politician." When the family moves into the governor's mansion in Sacramento, a stately Victorian, Nancy's mother looks around with distaste and says, "You're not going to live in THIS relic, are you?" Nancy's father: "It's a firetrap." Nancy: And the neighborhood is just terrible, and the schools are no good."
I just find it hard to believe that these words are accurate. Words "to that effect", yes -- whatever that means. But those specific words?
Of course the words that were spoken in public are recorded for all time on videotape or paper somewhere, so there's no reason to doubt them. On the other hand, public speech from politicians is mostly blather and not very informative.
So, anyway, how do the Reagans come across? Rather disjointedly. It's not a particularly good script. Reagan's character is at least written as consistent. He's a nice guy who keeps having recurring nightmares about trying to save people. (Who said that?) He hates arguments and doesn't like to say no to anyone and he never gets angry. (Nothing in there about shouting, "Mister Chairman, I PAID for this microphone," or, "Mister Gorbachev -- tear down this wall!") Nancy, though, is turned into a snooty bitch both by the script and by Judy Davis. Nothing is good enough for her, including the White House china selections bought over the years by Mrs. Truman, Mrs. Taft, etc. "We might as well use paper plates!" She truly loves Ronnie -- no question -- but aside from that she is given only one touch of humanity. She tries to talk to Ronnie about AIDS when her beloved hairdresser dies of the disease. (He's not interested.) But this is inconsistent with her character as written because she is nowhere shown with even a hint of a social conscience.
Brolin does a professional job as Reagan, and Davis swishes through her part with a vengeance. Every other exit line is a snotty comment. The kids are hard to tell apart except for Patti, who has guts, and the grown Ronnie who has become a ballet dancer of all things. "Nothing wrong with being a dancer," Reagan tries to convince himself and the press, "Look at Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly -- real men." And Patti has a good moment watching her Mom on TV during the "Just Say No To Drugs" campaign. "Where were you THEN?" asks Patti, taking a big toke off her joint. Actually, there's quite a bit of humor in this longish film. After Reagan's bombshell of a Star Wars speech, a reporter calls Deever "for comment," and asks, "You know where he got the idea? Ever hear of 'Murder in the Air'?", and the reporter looks down at a VHS of the old Reagan movie. Says Deever, "Great flick."
Since I don't want to run out of space I will simply recommend watching it. I'm not sure I'd want to see it again, but it's a real curiosity. Gossips may get more out of it than I did.
Anyhow...
Zach-Urbina1 December 2003
Despite the huge wave of bad buzz surround this biopic, it actually was not half bad (the brief John Stamos cameo notwithstanding). James "Mr. Streisand" Brolin delivered a consistent performance, especially as Reagan toward the end of his presidency. The true star of this network mini-series come cable-pic is Judy Davis, who captures "Nancy Pants," as Ronnie refers to her in the film, with remarkable warmth and brief moments of manic intensity. The depiction of the Reagan children was humorous in a transparent, two-dimensional kinda way (like the Brady Bunch on acid).
The biographical tone and pacing of the film ran similar to Oliver Stone's Nixon. Unlike Nixon, who everyone suspected was a dirtbag, seeing the Reagans behind the curtains is rather fascinating. In the end, Reagan supporters have nothing to gripe about as the film's final consideration of Reagan is in the light of a truly well-meaning gentleman. Granted there is a certain sensitivity to various specific elements within the film, given Reagan's current health situation, but all the hype aside, it was genuinely interesting to watch. 7 out of 10.
The biographical tone and pacing of the film ran similar to Oliver Stone's Nixon. Unlike Nixon, who everyone suspected was a dirtbag, seeing the Reagans behind the curtains is rather fascinating. In the end, Reagan supporters have nothing to gripe about as the film's final consideration of Reagan is in the light of a truly well-meaning gentleman. Granted there is a certain sensitivity to various specific elements within the film, given Reagan's current health situation, but all the hype aside, it was genuinely interesting to watch. 7 out of 10.
Guilty Pleasure
bobzmcishl11 July 2018
This was not a great movie, but it was absorbing and kept my attention. It bordered on campy at times. It actually could have used four episodes to tell the entire story of the Reagans, and should have covered his after White House life. His diagnosis of Alzheimers and his dramatic admission would have made for further good viewing. The story may have had a "leftward" slant at times, but overall I thought the portrait of the Reagans was sympathetic. Reagan could be cold to his children, but warmhearted toward others. He didn't like conflict and both he and Nancy were socially tolerant, having cut their teeth in show business. Reagan did have a great sense of humor which comes through and lightens the tone. Looking back, it now seems quaint that this movie was so controversial at the time.
A horrible revisionist melodrama!
cdoelle1 December 2003
This film was terrible. It is revisionist history at its most blatant. There was no mention of "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." There was no mention of his tax cuts. There was no mention of the arms treaty he signed eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons. There was no footage of the wall coming down. There was no mention of the funding appropriated for AIDS under Reagan. There was only a left-wing agenda to portray President Reagan as a war hawk who created the AIDS epidemic single-handedly.
If a filmmaker's agenda is to slant history, let him be intelligent and honest enough to create a fictional satire. To portray these lies as history is not only dishonest, but morally reprehensible.
If a filmmaker's agenda is to slant history, let him be intelligent and honest enough to create a fictional satire. To portray these lies as history is not only dishonest, but morally reprehensible.
Actors can play presidents
jgil-129 May 2004
James Brolin's portrayal of Ronald Reagan is easily the best I have viewed. Judy Davis was very good too in her portrayal of Nancy Reagan as she captivated Nancy's personality just as I would imagine it as Ronny's strong right hand. Viewers who criticize this as a "hatchet job" should either get their head out of the sand or read a history book because it is a well known fact that Ronny was an out of touch, hands off president who deligated power so recklessly that it finally got him in big trouble in the infamous "arms for hostages" debacle that casted a dark cloud over his final days as president. It is also well known that in his final years he was often in a memory lapped fog as his mind and memory were slowly degenerating in the early stages of undiagnosed Alzheimer's Disease. This was very apparent when he was interviewed about his role in the "arms for hostages" and he had a blank look on his face as he stated that he couldn't remember anything. Not long after that, his doctors finally diagnosed his condition and he made his final farewell speech and stated that he was going to "ride off into the sunset". He will always be remembered as a great president in spite of his flaws. This movie did a great job in showing Nancy and him, with all their blemishes, in a fair and accurate portrayal. It is also common knowledge that they had a poor relationship with their children and were somewhat cold and distant to them -especially Nancy being cold to her 2 stepkids by Jane Wyman. She was known to be quite jealous of Ronny's first wife and unfortunately for the 2 kids, they had to take the brunt. Knowing alot about this couple in advance made me enjoy the movie all the more, because it did not seem to pull any punches or gloss over their faults but also portrayed their good side too. James Brolin did such a good job of looking and acting like Ronnie that he deserves special recognition. My respect for him as an actor increased multifold after viewing this movie and it will remain as one of my favorites. Definitely a "10" out of 10 in my opinion. Banning this movie from television (it was originally a made for t.v. movie) was ridiculous and those who criticize this movie should have their heads examined!!
Review- "The Reagans"
tickle_bee8165814 May 2005
After seeing this movie, I would admit that the acting by Brolin was excellent! However, I feel that President Reagan was portrayed as a man that couldn't or wouldn't care to make important decisions. This is contradictory to the actual man and President that he was. Case in point. A speech was being prepared to address the soviet union directly concerning freedom and the iron curtain. All of the advisor's of his administration, including Colin Powel, were concerned about the speech he was going to make. They felt that he statements would insult the leadership of the Soviet Union and more importantly, Mikial Gorbachev. The now famous statement, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" had an enormous impact on the policies and procedures between the United States and Russia. I just don't believe that this movie was a fair example of Ronald Reagan the man or the President. I feel that President Reagan will go down in history as one of the finest in American history...
This movie Stinks!!!
dkelly867318 April 2006
This movie was simply awful!!! First of all, this movie should have been titled. Nancy Regan, as the major focus of the movies was on her, not the former President. No matter your political bend, the movie portrayed President Reagan as doing nothing for the eight years that he was President. Instead of focusing on the fall of the Soviet Union, the booming Economy, restored faith in the country as a whole, it focused on, AIDS, the coldness of Nancy Reagan, and their bad relationship with their children. (This was true to an extent. Interestingly enough, one of the focuses of the movie was Patti Reagan's hatred of her mother and her "love" of her father. If she loved her father so much, why did she take her , mother's maiden name, and openly campaign against her father? None of which was mentioned in the movie. Aside from a typical left wing, one sided view of President Reagan, the acting was horrible. Brolin never had one moment portraying Reagan as serious. The whole movie was Jelly Beans and Bedtime for Bonzo. The movie was pulled because it was terrible. One last issue. The Kennedy movie with Martin Sheen was a total puff piece put out by Liberal Hollywood, but at least in that film, the acting was well done, and the movie was entertaining. The same can not be said of The Reagans.
Good Docudrama, with Excellent Acting
rsmolin1 December 2003
Despite all the bad mouthing of this television movie, I was surprised by the quality of the film, the actors, the editing, and production. I think it ranks with many other good docudramas, telling the story of Ron and Nancy Reagan's life together, from mainly the perspective of Nancy and her quirky, ambitious, controlling personality. Was it a fair and balanced portrayal? Well, only those close to the Reagans can tell us, but it seemed fair to me, pointing out the strong and weak points of both characters. James Brolin did a superb job of acting --I thought it was Emmy material. And all the supporting family members and White House staff (etc.) come across fairly well drawn. Al Haig's character comes off right on! I hear criticism that the characters were one-dimensional, but I didn't find that to be the case at all. I thought it was worth an 8 out of 10.
Better than I thought
mm-392 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers. I believed this would be a left wing hatch job. This wasn't, well the ending notes where a bit too much. Instead, we have a realistic portrayal. Who has the perfect family, or never makes mistake is not a real person. There were a few shots in the movie, but other parts probably happened. The movie showed the human and kind side to Ron, and how Nancy loved him so much. The dark side to Nancy, and the kids, along with the real life human infighting at the white house is real. I bet the Clinton's would be hit a little less hard from some in the media, I like watching hard hitting, more real life shows. This brought some interest too the subject of a great president. 7 out of 10 PS I bet some of the events which was unbelievable probably happened, while other believable events were dramatized.
Big brouhaha over nothing.
Grynell1 December 2003
In spite of the flack from the RNC and conservatives all over the country, this film was about as controversial as "Bambi." Left alone, no one would even remember seeing it a year from now.
Far from being a "tell-all," it was handled almost lovingly. Brolin did a fairly decent *impression* of Ronnie, though never quite believable. Over the course of a couple of hours, Davis actually becomes Nancy.
The striking thing about the storyline is that Ron's Alzheimer's was spotted very early on by Nancy, and actually gives a new slant to the hazy "I don't remember" days of the Presidency.
Though certainly not as bad as predicted, it's still a long way from something I would recommend. If you're over 30, you'll get a kick out of it. The Al Hague sequences are hysterical!
Watch this movie only if you have 3 hours to kill late some night.
Far from being a "tell-all," it was handled almost lovingly. Brolin did a fairly decent *impression* of Ronnie, though never quite believable. Over the course of a couple of hours, Davis actually becomes Nancy.
The striking thing about the storyline is that Ron's Alzheimer's was spotted very early on by Nancy, and actually gives a new slant to the hazy "I don't remember" days of the Presidency.
Though certainly not as bad as predicted, it's still a long way from something I would recommend. If you're over 30, you'll get a kick out of it. The Al Hague sequences are hysterical!
Watch this movie only if you have 3 hours to kill late some night.
A Necessary Watch
cerrolls11 June 2004
In the aftermath of Reagan's passing, the entire media is hurriedly engaged in rewriting the truth about this highly-flawed but interesting man. Virtually all of his significant errors, short-comings, and failures are being sanitized, and as his canonization completes itself the myths that remains will be a sham. Every citizen who values the truth should buy this DVD now and watch it before it disappears, just like the truths it reveals are disappearing.
In this remarkably factual production we learn about Reagan the actor, capable and pleasant. We also learn that he snitched off his pals to the HUAC. We learn that during the war he made movies in Culver City for the Army, and later had trouble finding work, finally winding up as GE's spokesman for Death Valley Days on Television, a medium he always held in contempt.
We watch his disdain for the IRS grow as his income skyrockets, and how it matures into a complete repudiation of the Federal Government. And as his resentment of the Federal Government grows, we witness how the shadowy rich seduce him into becoming their tax-cutting puppet, from the Governship of California through 2 terms in the White House.
Most importantly, we learn the truth about the most dysfunctional family ever to inhabit the White House, based largely on Reagan's shocking disinterest in his own flesh and blood.
Mainly, however, we learn the truth about Nancy. Let's just say that the truth as it is revealed here eclipses everything that you though you knew about this shrewd and manipulative woman.
This film contains the truths about Reagan that the Modern Cons don't want you to know. The source-work for this film is beyond reproach, with most of it coming from the writings of Reagans children first published years ago.
Production wise, it's great. James Brolin is uncanny in his capture of the Reagan personna, and he delivers a performance that is charitable and kind. I think it's his best ever. The other performances are equally as good.
Bottom Line: The truth is out there, and this is it.
In this remarkably factual production we learn about Reagan the actor, capable and pleasant. We also learn that he snitched off his pals to the HUAC. We learn that during the war he made movies in Culver City for the Army, and later had trouble finding work, finally winding up as GE's spokesman for Death Valley Days on Television, a medium he always held in contempt.
We watch his disdain for the IRS grow as his income skyrockets, and how it matures into a complete repudiation of the Federal Government. And as his resentment of the Federal Government grows, we witness how the shadowy rich seduce him into becoming their tax-cutting puppet, from the Governship of California through 2 terms in the White House.
Most importantly, we learn the truth about the most dysfunctional family ever to inhabit the White House, based largely on Reagan's shocking disinterest in his own flesh and blood.
Mainly, however, we learn the truth about Nancy. Let's just say that the truth as it is revealed here eclipses everything that you though you knew about this shrewd and manipulative woman.
This film contains the truths about Reagan that the Modern Cons don't want you to know. The source-work for this film is beyond reproach, with most of it coming from the writings of Reagans children first published years ago.
Production wise, it's great. James Brolin is uncanny in his capture of the Reagan personna, and he delivers a performance that is charitable and kind. I think it's his best ever. The other performances are equally as good.
Bottom Line: The truth is out there, and this is it.
Hey, it's the Osbornes!
cherold12 December 2003
Story of a pleasantly clueless man, his much smarter wife and their bickering children really isn't too bad. Of course the conservatives didn't like this movie; it didn't portray Reagan as a brilliant visionary, which of course he wasn't anyway. It actually portrays him as a very nice, sincere, rather simple man. Nancy is harsh but very savvy. They clearly love each other, although they don't seem to have much attention left to spend on their kids. They seem to have cut out the lines that most peeved the conservatives, but that wouldn't be enough, because the conservatives idolize Reagan, except for the few with brains. Anyway, in terms of the debate, was Reagan evil or stupid, the movie makes a good case for stupid, and I wound up liking Reagan better than I ever did while he was in office (perhaps because Brolin is a better actor). Judy Davis was also excellent as Nancy. It's not a great movie, it feels a little long and it's very much a TV-movie type of thing, but it's quite watchable, probably worth about 6.5/10.
All in the dysfunctional family.
mark.waltz17 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
An elaborate soap opera that covers Hollywood history, the communist scare, California politics and eventually a political dynasty that had major problems behind the scenes and quiet conflict over wrong and right. The problems are major, considering that these facts had already been documented in many books and that the two part movie, while well done, skips over many years and the desire to see those missing situations does remain on the mind as they skips by.
The number of famous people both in politics and the movies and television reads lots a who's who, with some famous figures nothing more than walk on extras. But for the leads, they cast two definite pros, James Brolin as Ronald and Judy Davis as Nancy. Brolin definitely fits Ronald to a tea, his mannerisms much better than expected, and certainly no SNL parody. Judy Davis could never sound like Nancy Davis, and often sounds like her Emmy winning role as Judy Garland as well as other real life characters she's played, mesmerizing still, and even sympathetic at times.
Certainly differing feelings on the Reagans will guide the viewer's feelings, but there's no doubt that Ronald, as portrayed here, loved his country and family unconditionally and did the best he could, and Davis's Nancy loves her children as best as she can but focused all her energy on both her husband and providing the perfect image for him. Relationships with her stepchildren and her own children have varying emotions, but it's a fair portrayal that doesn't make her a monster. Her obsession with supernatural guidance is dealt with too. Worth watching, but should have been longer and less episodic.
The number of famous people both in politics and the movies and television reads lots a who's who, with some famous figures nothing more than walk on extras. But for the leads, they cast two definite pros, James Brolin as Ronald and Judy Davis as Nancy. Brolin definitely fits Ronald to a tea, his mannerisms much better than expected, and certainly no SNL parody. Judy Davis could never sound like Nancy Davis, and often sounds like her Emmy winning role as Judy Garland as well as other real life characters she's played, mesmerizing still, and even sympathetic at times.
Certainly differing feelings on the Reagans will guide the viewer's feelings, but there's no doubt that Ronald, as portrayed here, loved his country and family unconditionally and did the best he could, and Davis's Nancy loves her children as best as she can but focused all her energy on both her husband and providing the perfect image for him. Relationships with her stepchildren and her own children have varying emotions, but it's a fair portrayal that doesn't make her a monster. Her obsession with supernatural guidance is dealt with too. Worth watching, but should have been longer and less episodic.
Mediocre caricatures
msecour10 December 2003
James Brolin has a few flashes of capturing a Reagan pose just right, but simply does not come close to the real man. Richard Crenna was far superior in "The Day Reagan Was Shot." The re-creation of the Reagan-Carter debate missed the mark with both Reagan and Carter. The actors had little of the personality and spark of the originals. I remember President Carter laughing with the audience when Reagan quipped his famous "There you go again." In this dramatization, he simply glared. In that regard, I would say that the mediocrity is unbiased. Judy Davis' portrayal of Nancy is simply weird, almost as if it was "Nancy as she might have been played by Judy Garland."
The film is not unwatchable, but anyone too young to remember the actual people being portrayed should take it all with a grain of salt and find additional sources of history.
The film is not unwatchable, but anyone too young to remember the actual people being portrayed should take it all with a grain of salt and find additional sources of history.
Brilliant...plain and simple
Robert_duder5 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Late last year I hyped Jamie Foxx's role as Ray Charles as the best I have ever seen. Second best and very close second is James Brolin in his drop dead amazing portrayal as President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Robert Allan Ackerman brings us the much hyped, controversial film The Reagans.
The Reagans basically begins with Ron meeting Nancy in a chance encounter years before the Whitehouse when they were both in Hollywood. We see younger Ron's passion and fire when it comes to Government and politics and we are shown his gradual rise to the top of the political parties through his defeats and eventually his greatest win of all. The movie then shows us the inner workings of one of the most controversial Presidencies. Hostages in Iran, an attempted assassination, "Star Wars" the missile defense system, and the end to the Cold War. All these issues and far more are dealt with no holds barred, showing both sides and also giving us the pros and cons of Reagan's decisions. At the heart of the film is the relationship between Nancy and Ron. Nancy is portrayed as overbearing, shallow at times, over confident, strong, dedicated, outspoken, controlling...her character is as anti-hero as it is hero at times. You have mixed opinions of her which is quite realistic to most peoples opinions. The film takes us right to the end of The Reagan Presidency showing us a man's legacy and a husband and wife who ran the country.
James Brolin embodies and becomes Ronald Reagan. His character is just frighteningly exact which makes the movie so much more amazing even if the rest of the cast wasn't as good and the story lacked something, Brolin's performance could have carried it. Fortunately the story was wonderfully written and dealt with covering every major event in the administration and Reagan's early years. If anything the events they covered were a tad too brief but it never jumped around to the point of confusion and kept a decent pace. Judy Davis who I thought bore a striking resemblance to Annette Bening but nonetheless played the most controversial of the characters with Nancy Reagan. To me it is easy to see the level of controversy that The Reagan family and the Republican party would have had with this film. The family is portrayed as broken, and a casualty to Ron's emphatic political beliefs and macho image. Nancy is portrayed as only a staunch supporter of her husband no matter what she has to do to provide that support and at what cost to her children. Their daughter played excellently by Zoie Palmer is the best example of their tragic existence in this political family and atmosphere. The film holds no punches and in the end takes a slight turn towards being non partisan by slipping in the big picture damage that some of the decisions Ronald Reagan made had on the American way of life. Still the film is hands down one of the best political films or biographies I have ever seen if not for the sole reason of James Brolin and Judy Davis. Through all the chaos you feel pity and joy with these characters. This a must see especially for anyone interested in history of politics. An amazing supporting cast, and amazing storyline as well. 9/10
The Reagans basically begins with Ron meeting Nancy in a chance encounter years before the Whitehouse when they were both in Hollywood. We see younger Ron's passion and fire when it comes to Government and politics and we are shown his gradual rise to the top of the political parties through his defeats and eventually his greatest win of all. The movie then shows us the inner workings of one of the most controversial Presidencies. Hostages in Iran, an attempted assassination, "Star Wars" the missile defense system, and the end to the Cold War. All these issues and far more are dealt with no holds barred, showing both sides and also giving us the pros and cons of Reagan's decisions. At the heart of the film is the relationship between Nancy and Ron. Nancy is portrayed as overbearing, shallow at times, over confident, strong, dedicated, outspoken, controlling...her character is as anti-hero as it is hero at times. You have mixed opinions of her which is quite realistic to most peoples opinions. The film takes us right to the end of The Reagan Presidency showing us a man's legacy and a husband and wife who ran the country.
James Brolin embodies and becomes Ronald Reagan. His character is just frighteningly exact which makes the movie so much more amazing even if the rest of the cast wasn't as good and the story lacked something, Brolin's performance could have carried it. Fortunately the story was wonderfully written and dealt with covering every major event in the administration and Reagan's early years. If anything the events they covered were a tad too brief but it never jumped around to the point of confusion and kept a decent pace. Judy Davis who I thought bore a striking resemblance to Annette Bening but nonetheless played the most controversial of the characters with Nancy Reagan. To me it is easy to see the level of controversy that The Reagan family and the Republican party would have had with this film. The family is portrayed as broken, and a casualty to Ron's emphatic political beliefs and macho image. Nancy is portrayed as only a staunch supporter of her husband no matter what she has to do to provide that support and at what cost to her children. Their daughter played excellently by Zoie Palmer is the best example of their tragic existence in this political family and atmosphere. The film holds no punches and in the end takes a slight turn towards being non partisan by slipping in the big picture damage that some of the decisions Ronald Reagan made had on the American way of life. Still the film is hands down one of the best political films or biographies I have ever seen if not for the sole reason of James Brolin and Judy Davis. Through all the chaos you feel pity and joy with these characters. This a must see especially for anyone interested in history of politics. An amazing supporting cast, and amazing storyline as well. 9/10
Sorry acting!
patbks1 December 2003
I thought I would watch this on Showtime to see what the flack was about. I was never a fan of the Reagans so I figured I wouldn't be bothered. But, what bothered me was the acting. Brolin did resemble Reagan. Nancy is portrayed as a pill popping shrew of a mother and a control freak who controlled everything. As Reagan said, "You're in control, Nancypants." The kids were cardboard characters who hated their parents and didn't much like one another. Reagan came across as obsessed by Commies and clueless in general. I don't know if it's factual. I do know it was not a documentary. When I see miniseries, I generally think fiction. I would have enjoyed it more if the acting had been better.
This is "right on". No wonder conservatives buried this
normbeau6 December 2003
In the beginning, I was a fan of the Reagans, but over his administration, things that are illustrated in this movie came to light and my opinion drastically changed. As far as the acting, James Brolin and Judy Davis have these characters nail down perfectly. No matter what you think of this movie, you can't deny they do an excellent job. Judy Davis, after her turn as Judy Garland, is the new Meryl Streep of taking on and transforming herself into a totally different character. Three cheers to here. As far a Brolin goes, I never really thought much of him as an actor, but he has changed my mind with this performance. I really think I'm watching Reagan. Amazing.
There were two points in this movie that gave me a positive insight into Nancy Reagain. First was the point in the movie where she visits her mother in the nursing home and she grabs onto the words of her mother that say "I love you". You can see Nancy grab that and give her true feelings back. Unfortunately, the mother was telling everyone "I love you", which puts Nancy back to her normal cold self. What this did show me though was that Nancy was like she is probably due to a total lack of love and saying so in her childhood. I hope her kids understand this now.
The second positive thing I saw, which I hope was accurate, was her grief and concern over the Aids epidemic. I think she felt the effect of this, but she couldn't get her husband to accept this and talk about it.
Overall, I thought this was excellent and wasn't as "over the top" as I was led to believe.
There were two points in this movie that gave me a positive insight into Nancy Reagain. First was the point in the movie where she visits her mother in the nursing home and she grabs onto the words of her mother that say "I love you". You can see Nancy grab that and give her true feelings back. Unfortunately, the mother was telling everyone "I love you", which puts Nancy back to her normal cold self. What this did show me though was that Nancy was like she is probably due to a total lack of love and saying so in her childhood. I hope her kids understand this now.
The second positive thing I saw, which I hope was accurate, was her grief and concern over the Aids epidemic. I think she felt the effect of this, but she couldn't get her husband to accept this and talk about it.
Overall, I thought this was excellent and wasn't as "over the top" as I was led to believe.
Much Ado About Nothing
majikstl1 December 2003
The nastiest thing this little mini-series does to the Reagans is that it makes them seem exceedingly dull. Indeed, had it been even half the hatchet job that conservatives claim, it might have been at least interesting. As is, the film is a this-happened-that-happened by-the-book biopic that offers little in the way of artistic style or drama.
All in all, however, the film seems to be remarkably generous to Ronnie and Nancy. Yes, they are portrayed as shallow, ambitious and self-absorbed, not to mention lousy parents, but that is old news. Considering the way that TV movies have characterized other presidents --- Washington and Lincoln up to JFK and LBJ -- it would seem that Reagan's Teflon shield remains in place. Ronald Reagan comes off as a vague, nice, inoffensive old man (even during his younger days) and Nancy's icy image has been greatly defrosted to make her seem far less ruthless than history remembers and a good deal more likable.
To their credit, James Brolin and Judy Davis do decent jobs of impersonating the couple. Brolin, looking properly embalmed just as Ronnie always did, disappears into his character. He never quite makes us believe he is Reagan, but you quickly forget that he is Brolin. Davis opts to give Nancy a personality, a characteristic generally absent from the former First Lady's usual public persona. She makes Nancy seem genuinely human, without a trace of the Lady Macbeth that one has come to expect from the mention of her name. The various actors playing the Reagan offspring barely register at all, but given their place in their parents' lives, being portrayed as non-entities might be fairly accurate.
The historical accuracy of the film is -- as with all TV biopics -- greatly suspect. Those who worship Reagan as a great leader will not be swayed, neither will those who remember him as symbol of fascism. But the film itself is not nearly as interesting as the over-the-top controversy it generated. Like the entire Reagan presidency, it is much ado about nothing. Certainly, the claims that it defamed the former president are unfounded, and though it falls far short of deifying the man, it hardly crucifies him either. But say what you will about Ronald Reagan, he knew how to put on a good show -- something that cannot be said about this film.
All in all, however, the film seems to be remarkably generous to Ronnie and Nancy. Yes, they are portrayed as shallow, ambitious and self-absorbed, not to mention lousy parents, but that is old news. Considering the way that TV movies have characterized other presidents --- Washington and Lincoln up to JFK and LBJ -- it would seem that Reagan's Teflon shield remains in place. Ronald Reagan comes off as a vague, nice, inoffensive old man (even during his younger days) and Nancy's icy image has been greatly defrosted to make her seem far less ruthless than history remembers and a good deal more likable.
To their credit, James Brolin and Judy Davis do decent jobs of impersonating the couple. Brolin, looking properly embalmed just as Ronnie always did, disappears into his character. He never quite makes us believe he is Reagan, but you quickly forget that he is Brolin. Davis opts to give Nancy a personality, a characteristic generally absent from the former First Lady's usual public persona. She makes Nancy seem genuinely human, without a trace of the Lady Macbeth that one has come to expect from the mention of her name. The various actors playing the Reagan offspring barely register at all, but given their place in their parents' lives, being portrayed as non-entities might be fairly accurate.
The historical accuracy of the film is -- as with all TV biopics -- greatly suspect. Those who worship Reagan as a great leader will not be swayed, neither will those who remember him as symbol of fascism. But the film itself is not nearly as interesting as the over-the-top controversy it generated. Like the entire Reagan presidency, it is much ado about nothing. Certainly, the claims that it defamed the former president are unfounded, and though it falls far short of deifying the man, it hardly crucifies him either. But say what you will about Ronald Reagan, he knew how to put on a good show -- something that cannot be said about this film.
An Incredible Acting Team Effort!
Sylviastel18 July 2011
James Brolin and Judy Davis should have won Emmys for their performances as President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis Reagan from their first meeting to the end of their two terms in the White House. Brolin reminds me of why everybody liked Reagan. He seemed easy-going and he could talk to anybody. When Michael flunks out of school, he doesn't bash or criticize him but gets him a tutor and help with Nancy. The Reagan household is a blended one. He was married to actress, Jane Wyman, who was an Oscar winner and on Falcon Crest during his years of Presidency. Sadly, we never see Jane Wyman at all. I didn't know that the younger Patti and Ron Jr. didn't know about Michael and Maureen until Michael came to stay with them. Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan is divine in this role. She really portrays her as a wife, mother, and above all else Ron's best friend and partner in life. They really were an extraordinary couple in marriage. When he actually did die, Nancy didn't want to leave his coffin. It was a heartbreaking goodbye.
Put 'The Reagans' on the curb
Jon-Osterholm25 March 2005
I'd love to hear what others thought about this movie. Maybe I am more a fan of Reagan and a bigger sucker for hype than I thought, but the supposed bio-film, 'The Reagans,' to which CBS gave the boot, was garbage. A Cabinet-appointed committee should be set up to investigate this bad movie-making. CBS -- and Showtime -- should have given it the boot because it was a rain-soaked cardboard facsimile of Ron and Nancy and a bad movie, not for any ideological controversy. "Idiot-logical," maybe -- logical to idiots.
The real controversy is that the movie sucked amazingly well and garnered any extensive media attention at all, short of the kind that 'Gigli' earned, for being a bad film. The only controversy growing out of this bad pic should be a belief growing among conspiracy theorists that the movie's real goal was to coyly reveal that the Reagans were actually robots that went wildly out of control, created by Ron's former employer, GE.
The characterization of Nancy was particularly one-dimensional (no, I won't even give it 2-D). The expression on her face through almost the whole movie -- the two hours I suffered through, of the three -- had me waiting for her to pull out a big knife and start jabbing at anything that moved, like the freaky undead Nazi assassin in 'Hellboy.'
Like most movies written and produced to leave a bad taste in one's mouth, it was without a good script and strived unimaginatively to make people think Nancy was solely a greedy woman who manipulated her brainless husband into politics. It will die a death like any such movies and TV shows, such as this goofy Henry Winkler show where he was trying to make fun of conservative radio hosts only to look like a dork himself. Add to that list Bill Maher's very existence in the public eye; once an enjoyably opinionated talker, he's proved to be more myopic than most of his guests on 'Politically Incorrect.'
Who cares what you think, you silly bio-film producers and writers. "Why can't you tell an honest story, no matter your intent?" That's what I'd like to ask the creators of 'The Reagans.' I wasted two hours of my life trying to figure out why anyone made this feeble movie, rather than trying to recall the good, bad and ugly of Reagan's public life with some sort of relevance.
NOTE: 0 out of 34 people found this review useful as of 2008. I want to thank each and every one of you. Judging from the other reviews on here, which got very favorable reactions from readers, I am happily alone in this instance.
The real controversy is that the movie sucked amazingly well and garnered any extensive media attention at all, short of the kind that 'Gigli' earned, for being a bad film. The only controversy growing out of this bad pic should be a belief growing among conspiracy theorists that the movie's real goal was to coyly reveal that the Reagans were actually robots that went wildly out of control, created by Ron's former employer, GE.
The characterization of Nancy was particularly one-dimensional (no, I won't even give it 2-D). The expression on her face through almost the whole movie -- the two hours I suffered through, of the three -- had me waiting for her to pull out a big knife and start jabbing at anything that moved, like the freaky undead Nazi assassin in 'Hellboy.'
Like most movies written and produced to leave a bad taste in one's mouth, it was without a good script and strived unimaginatively to make people think Nancy was solely a greedy woman who manipulated her brainless husband into politics. It will die a death like any such movies and TV shows, such as this goofy Henry Winkler show where he was trying to make fun of conservative radio hosts only to look like a dork himself. Add to that list Bill Maher's very existence in the public eye; once an enjoyably opinionated talker, he's proved to be more myopic than most of his guests on 'Politically Incorrect.'
Who cares what you think, you silly bio-film producers and writers. "Why can't you tell an honest story, no matter your intent?" That's what I'd like to ask the creators of 'The Reagans.' I wasted two hours of my life trying to figure out why anyone made this feeble movie, rather than trying to recall the good, bad and ugly of Reagan's public life with some sort of relevance.
NOTE: 0 out of 34 people found this review useful as of 2008. I want to thank each and every one of you. Judging from the other reviews on here, which got very favorable reactions from readers, I am happily alone in this instance.
A small history lesson
tord-16 November 2005
James Brolin and Judy Davis, though neither Reagan lookalikes, are the pin around which the story of the Reagans revolves, of course, but my what good acting! That the supporting cast also is excellent, and that as far as I can judge, they follow the actual events pretty well, doesn't make it worse! In short, this TV play, is a very good history lesson for anyone, whether you was a Reagan fan, or the reverse! And there is all the ingredients, you'll need, for a really good story: happiness and sorrow, honesty and double-talk, irony and sincerity, suspense and quiet.
8/10, for excellent acting and good handiwork.
8/10, for excellent acting and good handiwork.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
