bobzmcishl
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.
dkelly8673
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.
Tord S Eriksson
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.
lord woodburry
Ronald Reagan, 'The Gipper,' a supporting actor in the famous Knute Rockne story was catapulted out of a semi - historical TV show about the old west into Presidential politics by THE SPEECH, a campaign speech in favour of Barry Goldwater in 1964 in which Reagan managed throughout to omit Goldwater's name. Goldwater went down to an humiliating defeat but Reagan professing much of the Goldwater rhetoric went on to become the most popular president of the 20th century.The made for TV bio picture does fair coverage of the meteoric rise to power of Ronald Reagan and does honour to both Mr & Mrs Reagan. It covers most of the highlights well: election as Governor, the campaign for President against hapless Carter, the assassination attempt in which Reagan beat Techumseh's curse, the end of the cold war, Iran-contra affair and the departure at the end of the term.Comparable films: Backstairs at The White House.
AD
