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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Bravo to Showtime
yenlo23 January 2004
All I can say is Bravo to Showtime for airing this picture. There seems very little doubt now (and not because of this movie) that what was depicted in this made for TV film is accurate. Ronald Reagan was a spaced out old man residing in his own private La-La Land who had a great PR campaign to buffalo the American people into believing that he was running the country. The GOP and conservatives objected to this film. Well boo-hoo! It was made and shown. Isn't that what America is all about? Or is it about what conservatives only want?
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!!
Terrific
jpintar20 May 2004
I hate the fact that I had to wait for this movie to come out on DVD before I could see it. Why, because some idiots bullied CBS into pulling it. Shame on CBS for not airing this movie. This movie is a great dramatization of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. James Brolin is excellent as the 40th President and Judy Davis is terrific as Nancy Reagan. Those who criticize this movie haven't seen it and don't want to try to see the Reagans as flawed human beings. Yes, Reagan today is slowly dying but that doesn't make his political legacy questionable. The 1980s had its own problems just like we have today. I know, I grew up in the 1980s. What worked back then would not work today. I think that people should see this movie and decide for themselves.
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 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.
Superficial, Narrow-Minded Partisan TV Bio...
cariart10 May 2004
It's easy to accuse anyone who dislikes Robert Allan Ackerman's 'Looney Tune' production of "The Reagans" as a conservative biased in favor of the near-legendary President, but in all honesty, a hatchet job is a hatchet job, no matter what your political persuasion, and this film is nothing less, wrapped up in gauzy nostalgic ribbons.
From the opening scenes in late-forties Hollywood, as an already brain-dead Ronald (caricatured by a too-old-for-this-sequence James Brolin) is manipulated by a glowering, 'agenda'-driven Nancy Davis (Judy Davis, rechanneling her shrewish performance from ABSOLUTE POWER) into a date, the pair are not presented as balanced human beings, but cartooned clichés of the worst qualities their critics would accuse them of, years later (He is incapable of an original thought, she is hardly better, solely basing her opinions on 'fan' magazines, and, later, astrologers).
As the aged conservative power brokers (all pictured as rich, chain-smoking, self-serving vultures) twist the gullible half-wit Ronald into becoming their puppet, Nancy does a MOMMY DEAREST routine, callously using both their children and Ronald's by Jane Wyman to further her own ambitions (lest you feel any sympathy for the siblings, THEY are cartooned, too).
Long before the nearly nightmarish vision of Reagan's Presidential years, you are thoroughly convinced that a) Ronald and Nancy needed psychiatric help more than the Oval Office; b) the Reagan kids needed a shrink even WORSE; and c) all Republicans are either young and cynical or old and corrupt.
And how are the Democrats represented? Ah, they never appear! In a 'balanced' production, shouldn't both sides be represented? Otherwise, Reagan's personal attitudes and political beliefs cannot be rationalized...and this is just one reason why the film is really nothing more than a hatchet job.
When Reagan does something 'laudable' (like ending the 'Cold War'), it is merely a lucky accident, stumbled upon in the midst of bad decisions, between infamous 'naps', while Nancy lashes out at everyone.
I won't go on...this film is a disservice to the memories of people who, while not perfect, were certainly not idiots!
From the opening scenes in late-forties Hollywood, as an already brain-dead Ronald (caricatured by a too-old-for-this-sequence James Brolin) is manipulated by a glowering, 'agenda'-driven Nancy Davis (Judy Davis, rechanneling her shrewish performance from ABSOLUTE POWER) into a date, the pair are not presented as balanced human beings, but cartooned clichés of the worst qualities their critics would accuse them of, years later (He is incapable of an original thought, she is hardly better, solely basing her opinions on 'fan' magazines, and, later, astrologers).
As the aged conservative power brokers (all pictured as rich, chain-smoking, self-serving vultures) twist the gullible half-wit Ronald into becoming their puppet, Nancy does a MOMMY DEAREST routine, callously using both their children and Ronald's by Jane Wyman to further her own ambitions (lest you feel any sympathy for the siblings, THEY are cartooned, too).
Long before the nearly nightmarish vision of Reagan's Presidential years, you are thoroughly convinced that a) Ronald and Nancy needed psychiatric help more than the Oval Office; b) the Reagan kids needed a shrink even WORSE; and c) all Republicans are either young and cynical or old and corrupt.
And how are the Democrats represented? Ah, they never appear! In a 'balanced' production, shouldn't both sides be represented? Otherwise, Reagan's personal attitudes and political beliefs cannot be rationalized...and this is just one reason why the film is really nothing more than a hatchet job.
When Reagan does something 'laudable' (like ending the 'Cold War'), it is merely a lucky accident, stumbled upon in the midst of bad decisions, between infamous 'naps', while Nancy lashes out at everyone.
I won't go on...this film is a disservice to the memories of people who, while not perfect, were certainly not idiots!
TAUT DRAMA OF FAMOUS PRESIDENT AND HIS LADY
Mitch-383 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
*May Contain Spoilers, Cookies* Stirring biopic of the 40th President and his relationship with his wife, family, friends and the nation. James Brolin and Judy Davis, as Ronald and Nancy Reagan give four star performances, and each worthy of an Emmy nod. It traces their special relationship throughout their heydays in Hollywood, Ron's eventual capitulation to the ideology of the GOP, and the political bug they develop. Also, their sometimes stormy relationships within the family, friends and the political cohorts they attract. One can feel nothing but admiration for Nancy (Davis) Reagan, who defends and protects her husband from some of the murkier characters in the political circle. Donald Regan is portrayed as an absolute fiend, the father of the hair-brained and highly illegal Iran-Contra mess. The actors who portray Ed Meece, James Baker, et al, as Al Haig refers disparagingly as "The Troika," are exceptional and show political cronyism at its best (or worst). Michael Deaver is showed in a sensitive light, despite his legal troubles for lobbying on behalf of Canada and South Korean interests after he left government service. Zoie Palmer, who portrays Patty Reagan, does an incredible job as the misunderstood and oft-ignored daughter. Maureen Reagan's character was tastefully and tactfully created, and Shad Hart gets major kudos for his turn as Ron, Jr. The big bouquets go to James Brolin, who gives his best performance in years, as Ronald Reagan and Judy Davis as Nancy. Brolin embodies the character with fervor and not caricature. We don't get the massive head bobbing and "aw-shucksism" we've grown to be tortured with by bad impersonators. He is a man with a mission, and a kindly fellow at that. We may highly disagree with where he's going, but we've no doubt the man actually believes in the direction he's chugging. Judy Davis fleshes out the character of Nancy Reagan so well, it can make one shudder. She strong as steel, tender as fresh grown flowers and everything else within the mix. The point of mockery at the Washington Press Club, where Ronnie describes it as: "The nicest lynching we've ever attended..." Shows Nancy at her finest, where she meets adversity with an equal hand and a fine sense of humor, to boot. THE REAGANS offers an intimate, though not always complimentary view into the lives of the fortieth President and his lady. It's certainly a fine motion picture, and truly not deserving of the awful, heavy handed attempt at censorship by the Corporate and political power mongers. This kind of disgusting muting of creative thinking hasn't been pulled out of the moth-ridden closet, since America's flirtation with fascism in the McCarthy era. Don't let the stiff armed salute givers or those who wish to build their political empires on the Gipper's legacy give/tell you a bum steer. Watch this stimulating movie, and decide for yourself. After all, it's democracy. We know this might bother some, who are busying themselves with the sanctimonious deification of the man. Yet, we should never fall short of the sight, that he was indeed a man, after all. Roses all around for this movie.
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.
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.
OK Miniseries, Great Acting
235SCOPE30 November 2003
Whoever wrote THE REAGANS clearly doesn't buy into the Reagan "mystique" that so seems to send conservatives into a paroxysm of admiration for Ronnie, his wife and their politics. That aside, this is a not a great movie. The story is well known to all (everyone from Patty Davis to Donald Regan wrote about it), the dialogue is so-so and the low-budget limitations show throughout.
But it is simply amazing to watch Judy Davis and James Brolin as the famous couple. The resemblance to the originals is so astounding sometimes you forget you're watching a drama. What's more, both actors take a thoroughly human approach to their characters, never falling into farse or exaggerations. Both deserve at least acting nominations for these roles.
But it is simply amazing to watch Judy Davis and James Brolin as the famous couple. The resemblance to the originals is so astounding sometimes you forget you're watching a drama. What's more, both actors take a thoroughly human approach to their characters, never falling into farse or exaggerations. Both deserve at least acting nominations for these roles.
A fair and accurate portrayal of a pathetic president
Tiger_Mark30 November 2003
CBS really dropped the ball when they caved in to the right wing of this country by pulling this film. God Bless Showtime for having the courage and good sense to show it. To be honest, this movie confirmed more than enlightened. I always knew that Reagan was a simpleton who was dominated by a fanatical and crazed first lady. He was a President that prayed and then cut off funding to hospitals. He praised nature and then gave the go ahead for strip-mining operations. He ran up the biggest deficits of all-time and had no compassion for anyone that made less than six figures. This movie exposes this fraud for the joke he was and is. Brilliant! **** out of ****. Oh yeah, he was the family values President who was the only President to get a divorce.
If I were Nancy Pants, I wouldn't be happy
JohnnyCNote30 November 2003
But then, Miss "Just say no" was not happy about a lot of things. There's no telling what might have really been said behind closed doors, but when one compares the historical record with this docudrama, it's hard to imagine how else it might have been. If you're a die-hard Reagan fan, you probably will not like this. Personally, I think it's dead on, but that's just an opinion.
Far more controversial docudramas have been shown, but CBS caved into pressure from the Reagan cultists. That shows the power of the Reagan myth. I might add that I used to be a Reagan supporter, but after he was elected president, I changed to independent....
Far more controversial docudramas have been shown, but CBS caved into pressure from the Reagan cultists. That shows the power of the Reagan myth. I might add that I used to be a Reagan supporter, but after he was elected president, I changed to independent....
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.
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.
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.
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.
A well made, well acted, well shot mini-series subverted by its script
ebertjr21 November 2004
If you're reading this, you probably are aware of the controversy that kept this mini-series off of CBS. At the time, this movie was made out to be a character assassination. After watching it, I realize that's not what it was, and why Reagan supporters hated this movie.
The problem with this mini-series is that it's the dreaded docu-drama. Any insightful viewer who watches "The Reagans" will be left asking themselves how truthful this movie really was. This is the problem with the docu-drama in general. It's not a documentary, so it doesn't have to be held to any standard of fact (though Michael Moore somehow gets his movies labeled as documentaries, go figure).
So this ends up being a hodge-podge of things that have been inferred about the Reagans' lives from tell-alls and public record. The script of this film tries to neatly fit tidbits of the Reagans' lives into 15 second exchanges of dialogue. For example, it's been long known that Nancy is/was interested in astrology. The way we get introduced to this is having Nancy get told about astrology at a party in 1958 or something like that. It's just a little too neatly put together. It's similar with the dialogue between Reagan and his political advisor's.
Bottom line is, it's worth watching, though is too long, like mini-series always are. James Brolin does a very nice job of showing us the Reagan we all know. He also takes it past the Rich Little level -- he tweaks the character to show us someone that's just a bit deeper than the man we saw on television.
At the end, you'll probably be left thinking it was entertaining, maybe informative, but you'll want to read a more detailed biography that might be a little more rock solid in fact. Did Reagan really not want to get out of bed on the day of his inauguration? Once again.. very hard to believe.
The problem with this mini-series is that it's the dreaded docu-drama. Any insightful viewer who watches "The Reagans" will be left asking themselves how truthful this movie really was. This is the problem with the docu-drama in general. It's not a documentary, so it doesn't have to be held to any standard of fact (though Michael Moore somehow gets his movies labeled as documentaries, go figure).
So this ends up being a hodge-podge of things that have been inferred about the Reagans' lives from tell-alls and public record. The script of this film tries to neatly fit tidbits of the Reagans' lives into 15 second exchanges of dialogue. For example, it's been long known that Nancy is/was interested in astrology. The way we get introduced to this is having Nancy get told about astrology at a party in 1958 or something like that. It's just a little too neatly put together. It's similar with the dialogue between Reagan and his political advisor's.
Bottom line is, it's worth watching, though is too long, like mini-series always are. James Brolin does a very nice job of showing us the Reagan we all know. He also takes it past the Rich Little level -- he tweaks the character to show us someone that's just a bit deeper than the man we saw on television.
At the end, you'll probably be left thinking it was entertaining, maybe informative, but you'll want to read a more detailed biography that might be a little more rock solid in fact. Did Reagan really not want to get out of bed on the day of his inauguration? Once again.. very hard to believe.
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.
What was all the fuss about??!!??
Rick19485 December 2003
This was a well acted well directed film about an American icon and his family. Although it was reported that the film itself was supposed to be more about Ronald Reagan, it was more of an analysis of Nancy's life and how she viewed their relationship. I really don't know what the Reaganites are complaining about except for the few instances of artistic license taken to fill in their personal relationship. That happens in every film of this genre. Its time the NeoCons get a life and realize that Reagan was just as human as the rest of us and he did have faults. I think that if this was made for the big screen instead of TV it would have been a little more interesting. I wish they had dealt with the Ollie North issue in a little more detail. But overall I think it was a good presentation.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
