Reagan Biopic: A Polarizing Portrait of America’s 40th President

The newly released biopic ‘Reagan,’ starring Dennis Quaid, has sparked a wave of polarized reactions from critics and audiences alike. Directed by Sean McNamara, known for family-friendly films such as ‘3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain’ and ‘Cats & Dogs 3: Paws Unite,’ the film has been a subject of intense debate. While some see it as a glowing tribute to Ronald Reagan, others criticize it for its lack of depth and nuance. The film had been sitting on the shelf for four years before finally being released, adding an air of anticipation and curiosity around it. The movie opens with a dramatic portrayal of the assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, setting the tone for a narrative that oscillates between present-day Moscow and flashbacks to Reagan’s early years in radio and Hollywood. Jon Voight plays Viktor Petrovich, a former KGB agent who narrates the story of Reagan to a younger functionary, further complicating the film’s structure with multiple temporal shifts.

Dennis Quaid’s portrayal of Reagan has been both praised and criticized. On one hand, Quaid captures Reagan’s iconic voice and mannerisms with evident conviction, making his performance one of the film’s few redeeming qualities. However, critics argue that the film’s script fails to provide much insight into who Reagan really was as a person, despite covering key moments in his political career. The narrative suggests that Reagan’s anti-communist activism during his entertainment career played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, a claim that is heavily debated among historians. The film also delves into Reagan’s personal life, portraying his marriages to Jane Wyman and Nancy Davis, played by Mena Suvari and Penelope Ann Miller, respectively. Yet, these depictions are often criticized for their lack of emotional depth and authenticity.

The film’s heavy use of diffusion filters and its TV-movie-like quality have not gone unnoticed. Critics have pointed out that the film’s cinematography and score lack the sophistication expected of a biopic about such a significant figure. Scenes that should have been impactful, such as Reagan’s famous ‘Tear down this wall!’ speech in Berlin in 1987, come off as overly sentimental and simplistic. The film also touches briefly on controversial topics like the Iran-Contra scandal and the AIDS crisis but fails to delve deeply into these issues, opting instead for a more sanitized version of events. This approach has led many to describe the film as more of a hagiography than a balanced biopic.

One of the most criticized aspects of the film is its framing device. The narrative is bookended by scenes set in present-day Moscow, where a young Russian politician visits a former KGB spy to hear about Reagan’s legend. This device, meant to add a layer of intrigue, is seen by many as unnecessary and even absurd. The fake Russian accents and beards only add to the sense of artificiality that permeates the film. Moreover, the film’s portrayal of Reagan as a divine warrior chosen by God to defeat communism comes off as preachy and one-dimensional. Narration by Quaid includes mentions of a ‘divine plan’ and God’s involvement in Reagan’s near-death experience, further emphasizing the film’s overtly religious tone.

Despite the overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics, audiences seem to have a different take on the film. On Rotten Tomatoes, ‘Reagan’ holds an 18% ‘rotten’ rating from critics but boasts a 98% ‘fresh’ audience score. This stark contrast highlights the divide between critical and public perception. According to Deadline, the film received an A grade from audience surveys and 4 1/2 stars from post-release tracking services. It opened in 2,754 theaters and came in second place behind ‘Deadpool & Wolverine,’ earning $9 million in ticket sales for its four-day opening weekend. This commercial success suggests that, despite its flaws, the film resonates with a significant portion of the audience.

The film’s community guidelines promote open and thoughtful discussions, urging civility and respect. Posts that seem uncivil may be rejected, and the guidelines encourage sharing ideas and facts in a safe space. This approach aims to foster a more balanced and respectful dialogue around the film, which has become a lightning rod for debates about Reagan’s legacy. The presence of Hollywood conservatives like Kevin Sorbo, Robert Davi, and Lesley-Anne Down in the film can be seen as a stamp of approval for Reagan’s legacy, further polarizing opinions.

Critics like Nick Schager from The Daily Beast have not minced words, describing the film as ‘preachy, plodding, and graceless.’ He even goes as far as to call it the worst movie of the year. Other critics, such as Kyle Smith from The Wall Street Journal, also criticize the acting, cinematography, and score of the film. However, some critics, like Tim Appelo from AARP Movies for Grownups, find the film interesting when viewed through the lens of Reagan’s religious faith. This divergence in critical opinion adds another layer of complexity to the film’s reception.

Quaid’s portrayal of Reagan implies that he was the driving force behind the fall of the Soviet Union, a notion that is heavily romanticized in the film. The script, based on the book ‘The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism’ by Paul Kengor, simplifies and sentimentalizes Reagan’s governorship and two terms as president. The film includes famous lines and moments from Reagan’s presidency, such as his witty retort to Walter Mondale during a debate, but these moments do not make up for the lack of depth in the overall narrative. The film’s tone is more of a love letter to the former president than a critical examination of his life and policies.

The movie’s depiction of Reagan’s early life, including his work as a lifeguard and his experience with racial tensions, adds some historical context but fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of his character. The portrayal of his mother as a devout Christian who believes God has a purpose for her son and his father as a drunken lout adds a simplistic layer of good vs. evil to the narrative. The film also includes a cheesy scene of Reagan fighting for the Screen Actors Guild and a strained love story with his future wife Nancy, further detracting from its credibility.

The film’s running time of 135 minutes feels overly long, given its lack of substantive content. The PG-13 rating for violent content and smoking seems almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of the film’s shortcomings. Overall, the film serves as an extended and glowing commercial for Reagan rather than a true exploration of who he was as a person and a leader. The lack of critical insight and the overly sentimental portrayal make it a missed opportunity to provide a balanced view of one of America’s most polarizing presidents.

In conclusion, ‘Reagan’ is a film that will likely continue to spark debate and division. Its portrayal of Reagan as a charismatic actor, effective statesman, and divine warrior against communism is compelling to some but overly simplistic and preachy to others. Dennis Quaid’s performance is one of the few highlights, capturing Reagan’s iconic voice and mannerisms with evident conviction. However, the film’s lack of depth, poor execution of temporal shifts, and overly sentimental tone make it more of a hagiography than a balanced biopic. Whether you view it as a glowing tribute or a missed opportunity, ‘Reagan’ is a film that leaves a lasting impression, for better or worse.