tickle_bee81658 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...

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.

Solo4114 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.

Rose What were they thinking when they wrote about this President. And what were they thinking when they got James Brolin to do the acting. The acting was so terrible that I thought this was a joke. When I realized they were serious, it just made me sad than mad. They made Ronald Regan like a blundering idot, and his wife like a Hillary Clinton, He was one of the greatest presidents of our time and never got the credit he deserved. I just hope all the people involved in this garbage can sleep at night. Maybe next time stepford Brolin will listen more to his own instincts than someone else before he takes on a job like this.