Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

dweilermg-1 In 1984 the Gipper was re-elected president by a huge landslide of Americans including many GOP, DEM and independent voters. In 1989 the man left office with high ratings generally loved by most Americans. So when word got out that this MFTV movie would portray the man as a senile fool CBS was bombarded with angry phone calls, letters and Emails demanding that this movie be pulled from their prime time schedule. To assume that all the anger was merely from conservatives may not be correct as the man was liked and respected by Americans of various political views.

PWNYCNY 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.

briantaves For more than 30 years now, television has been churning out a stream of political "docu-dramas" depicting contemporary events and individuals. (Moreover, the term is a misnomer; they are no more–indeed, usually less–factual than the "biopics" and other historical historical fiction of the studio era.) Most of these TV "docu-dramas," no matter then length, have been bad, and some worse. For instance, plowing the same field as THE REAGANS was Showtime's THE DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT, highly melodramatic and woefully overacted. By contrast, THE REAGANS is everything these earlier films are not. In this respect, it takes a worthy place alongside the mini-series THE ADAMS CHRONICLES, or the vitally engaging one-man shows of BULLY or GIVE EM HELL, HARRY. In ambitiously tackling the actual presidency, THE REAGANS trumps the hagiography of Wilson (1944), and the many reverential treatments of Lincoln and his legends, or the exploitive biographies of the Kennedys. THE REAGANS avoids the traditional focus on a single incident in the presidential life, often highly fictionalized, such as SURISE AT CAMPOBELLO, THE PRESIDENT'S LADY, THE CROSSING, or JEFFERSON IN Paris.THE REAGANS is superbly written and nuanced; it both presents a new background along with the history of Reagan's rise to the presidency and the often alarming statements he made along the way (particularly if you grew up in California during his governorship, as I did). Utilizing his own utterances adds to the authenticity, giving THE REAGANS a constant sense of verisimilitude. While historically aggressive, it is not an attack on the individual, and grants him a generous personal latitude, and is infinitely fairer to its subject than Oliver Stone's NIXON. James Brolin, surprisingly, is an ideal choice as Reagan, and Judy Davis is no less perfect as Nancy. The other performers are equally well-chosen, all physically resembling their historical referent (with the notable–and thus annoying--exception of John Tower). Associates and family clearly fit their public personas, and this is perhaps what raised the most ire among Reaganites among the Republicans; the recent funeral and performances of sons Ron and Michael Reagan only demonstrates how superbly the film etched the family (among whom Ron Jr. certainly comes off as the best adjusted among a dysfunctional group of children). What brings all these factors together is the superb direction; this is not shot like the usual telefilm which can be "watched" while attending to the cleaning dishes. It is visually arresting and vigorously paced, and certainly benefits from its Showtime cable format without commercials. Whatever your political persuasion, I think this has to be regarded as one of the finest presidential screen biographies ever produced, not only in the television era, but among Hollywood theatrical movies as well.

bkdement 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.