Reagan (2024)

[GulfportDoc]

100860

Reagan (2024)


Writing an entertaining but accurate screenplay for a biographical film is a tricky proposition. The facts of the subject’s life are generally well known, so the challenge is to patch together many of the individual’s career highlights while making the presentation interesting and entertaining. The Aviator (2024) is one such successful picture that comes to mind.

Once the framework and highlights are selected, it is then up to the screenwriter, the director, and the production designer to come up with the makings of an appealing film. In addition, if the actors are keenly selected for their pertinent talents, then that is a winning combination.

In the case of Reagan the casting was first rate: Dennis Quaid was the perfect choice to portray Ronald Reagan. Quaid avoided attempting a direct impersonation, but his voice, reasonably similar looks to Reagan, and his ability to capture Reagan’s mannerisms made the character come alive. So too was Penelope Ann Miller well chosen to portray Nancy Reagan. At times she perfectly evoked her real life character. Even Dan Lauria as Reagan’s combatant and friend, feisty Speaker of the House Tip O’neill, was perfectly summoned up. One of the acting highlights is veteran Jon Voight in his portrayal of fictional retired KGB agent Viktor Petrovich. Voight’s is a nuanced performance, and his role provides the skeleton upon which the story is told.
The Petrovich character is a compendium of various KGB agents who had been assigned to study Reagan’s activities and policies from the time Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild, on through his terms as President. The screenplay by Howard Kausner is based upon Paul Kengor’s 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Not having read the book, it presumably fully lays out Reagan’s rise as a serious ideologue and anti-communist following World War II. The film takes us from Reagan’s childhood, his acting career, marriages, SAG presidency (1947-1952 & 1959-1960), California Governor (1967-1975), two terms as U.S. President (1981-1989), and his remaining days at the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, California stricken with Alzheimer’s disease which led to his death in 2004. It covers famous highlights from his speeches, such as his winning debate comment regarding Walter Mondale, “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience", to his demand to the Soviet Union General Secretary while speaking at the Berlin Wall, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The movie opens with the assassination attempt of 1981, not long after taking office.

So while Reagan’s true history provides more than enough material for a compelling film, it is the choice of screen writer and director that somewhat diminishes the finished project. Director Sean McNamara and screen writer Howard Kausner are both undistinguished talents. McNamara has worked chiefly in the pre-teen market, whereas Kausner has few highlights in his career. By comparison the aforementioned The Aviator had the writer & director team of Martin Scorsese and John Logan-- both seasoned film makers with many credits to their names.


It’s fair to say that Reagan has a built in fan base of individuals in their mid-fifties and up, who fondly recall President Reagan’s terms in office. He enjoyed a wide popularity irrespective of political affiliation due to his affability, traditional heartland values, and strength of character. Still, with an audience approval rating of 98% the movie has likely charmed many of a younger audience.|
|
So if you are not familiar with Ronald Reagan, or even if you are, the picture relates a fair recounting of his actions, and also of an era that was much simpler than our modern times.

Doc’s rating: 7/10

[KeyserCorleone]

To be fair, the audience rating is largely going to be made up of the first people who go to see the movie. In this case: it's conservatives. Having said that, I don't trust the critical ratings either.

[Captain Steel]

Haven't seen it yet, but I know one thing - this movie needs a cameo by Dennis Quaid's brother Randy (as cousin Eddie)! ;)

[Citizen Rules]

To be fair, the audience rating is largely going to be made up of the first people who go to see the movie. In this case: it's conservatives. Having said that, I don't trust the critical ratings either.I doubt that the majority of the audience who's seen and rated Reagan was conservatives. A good movie is a good movie. I haven't seen it but will when it hits the internet.

[FilmBuff]

A good movie is a good movie.

Yes, and the fact the got a total hack to direct this one pretty much sums it up.

[beelzebubble]

Penelope Ann Miller! What a blast from the past. I haven’t seen her in anything in a long time. She seems like a good choice for the role of Nancy Reagan.

[KeyserCorleone]

I doubt that the majority of the audience who's seen and rated Reagan was conservatives. A good movie is a good movie. I haven't seen it but will when it hits the internet.


It's only been out a few days. Obviously the ratings will be affected by the type of people who would go to see it first: fans of the subject matter. And in a time where politics is so nasty that it's taboo on some forums, I'm not surprised by either side of the ratings.


EDIT: On top of that, why would liberals pay to see a movie about a conservative president right before election day?

[Captain Steel]

I doubt that the majority of the audience who's seen and rated Reagan was conservatives. A good movie is a good movie. I haven't seen it but will when it hits the internet.

I'd wager that about 50% of today's movie-going audience don't even know who Reagan was.

[Citizen Rules]

I'd wager that about 50% of today's movie-going audience don't even know who Reagan was.I was thinking the same thing.

[Citizen Rules]

It's only been out a few days. Obviously the ratings will be affected by the type of people who would go to see it first: fans of the subject matter. And in a time where politics is so nasty that it's taboo on some forums, I'm not surprised by either side of the ratings.


EDIT: On top of that, why would liberals pay to see a movie about a conservative president right before election day?You're over thinking the importance of politics on the popularity of a biopic movie. Not everyone is politically polarized and will see or not see the movie based on their beliefs. Sometimes historical figures are interesting in and of themselves.

[FilmBuff]

This movie might also just be of interest to anyone who followed the old stars of the golden age of Hollywood. Granted, Reagan's career really didn't amount to very much there, but he did have a very limited range and appeal as an actor.

[Citizen Rules]

This movie might also just be of interest to anyone who followed the old stars of the golden age of Hollywood. Granted, Reagan's career really didn't amount to very much there, but he did have a very limited range and appeal as an actor.Reagan was actually a good actor when placed in a decent movie like Kings Row (1942). He was personable onscreen and I've seen a number of his films, he was a decent actor but ended up in a bunch of b movies.

[FilmBuff]

Reagan was actually a good actor when placed in a decent movie like Kings Row (1942). He was personable onscreen and I've seen a number of his films, he was a decent actor but ended up in a bunch of b movies.

A lot of film historians maintain he never would have gotten even those parts if it hadn't been for WW2 and the fact a lot of male stars had actually gone off to fight in the war.

[KeyserCorleone]

You're over thinking the importance of politics on the popularity of a biopic movie. Not everyone is politically polarized and will see or not see the movie based on their beliefs. Sometimes historical figures are interesting in and of themselves.

Ignore the like.

I didn't say everyone is. I said the movies only been out for a few days and the first people to go see it right before election day would likely be conservatives. You think the 98% rating will be permanent?

[Citizen Rules]

A lot of film historians maintain he never would have gotten even those parts if it hadn't been for WW2 and the fact a lot of male stars had actually gone off to fight in the war.Where did you read that at Reddit? And just how many film historians actually said that.

[Citizen Rules]

Ignore the like.

I didn't say everyone is. I said the movies only been out for a few days and the first people to go see it right before election day would likely be conservatives. You think the 98% rating will be permanent?I didn't say, you said everyone is. It's conjecture that mainly conservatives went to see and supposedly rated high the movie Reagan. By that line of reasoning the 8.2 rating of Downfall must have been by Nazis, which I refuse to believe.

[FilmBuff]

Where did you read that at Reddit? And just how many film historians actually said that.

What is reddit?

[matt72582]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=100860

Reagan (2024)


Writing an entertaining but accurate screenplay for a biographical film is a tricky proposition. The facts of the subject’s life are generally well known, so the challenge is to patch together many of the individual’s career highlights while making the presentation interesting and entertaining. The Aviator (2024) is one such successful picture that comes to mind.

Once the framework and highlights are selected, it is then up to the screenwriter, the director, and the production designer to come up with the makings of an appealing film. In addition, if the actors are keenly selected for their pertinent talents, then that is a winning combination.

In the case of Reagan the casting was first rate: Dennis Quaid was the perfect choice to portray Ronald Reagan. Quaid avoided attempting a direct impersonation, but his voice, reasonably similar looks to Reagan, and his ability to capture Reagan’s mannerisms made the character come alive. So too was Penelope Ann Miller well chosen to portray Nancy Reagan. At times she perfectly evoked her real life character. Even Dan Lauria as Reagan’s combatant and friend, feisty Speaker of the House Tip O’neill, was perfectly summoned up. One of the acting highlights is veteran Jon Voight in his portrayal of fictional retired KGB agent Viktor Petrovich. Voight’s is a nuanced performance, and his role provides the skeleton upon which the story is told.
The Petrovich character is a compendium of various KGB agents who had been assigned to study Reagan’s activities and policies from the time Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild, on through his terms as President. The screenplay by Howard Kausner is based upon Paul Kengor’s 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Not having read the book, it presumably fully lays out Reagan’s rise as a serious ideologue and anti-communist following World War II. The film takes us from Reagan’s childhood, his acting career, marriages, SAG presidency (1947-1952 & 1959-1960), California Governor (1967-1975), two terms as U.S. President (1981-1989), and his remaining days at the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, California stricken with Alzheimer’s disease which led to his death in 2004. It covers famous highlights from his speeches, such as his winning debate comment regarding Walter Mondale, “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience", to his demand to the Soviet Union General Secretary while speaking at the Berlin Wall, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The movie opens with the assassination attempt of 1981, not long after taking office.

So while Reagan’s true history provides more than enough material for a compelling film, it is the choice of screen writer and director that somewhat diminishes the finished project. Director Sean McNamara and screen writer Howard Kausner are both undistinguished talents. McNamara has worked chiefly in the pre-teen market, whereas Kausner has few highlights in his career. By comparison the aforementioned The Aviator had the writer & director team of Martin Scorsese and John Logan-- both seasoned film makers with many credits to their names.


It’s fair to say that Reagan has a built in fan base of individuals in their mid-fifties and up, who fondly recall President Reagan’s terms in office. He enjoyed a wide popularity irrespective of political affiliation due to his affability, traditional heartland values, and strength of character. Still, with an audience approval rating of 98% the movie has likely charmed many of a younger audience.|
|
So if you are not familiar with Ronald Reagan, or even if you are, the picture relates a fair recounting of his actions, and also of an era that was much simpler than our modern times.

Doc’s rating: 7/10



He looks black. But I understand the need to be diverse.

[KeyserCorleone]

I didn't say, you said everyone is. It's conjecture that mainly conservatives went to see and supposedly rated high the movie Reagan. By that line of reasoning the 8.2 rating of Downfall must have been by Nazis, which I refuse to believe.

A: I keep saying the ratings are likely not going to stay that way for Reagan. I said it would start out that way and there's a chance they would lower when more people go to see it. It doesn't even have to be for a political movie. This happens with practically every movie that has a franchise.

B: Downfall was not a pro-nazi movie. Even if it did attract Nazis at the start, why would they support a movie about Hitler losing and killing himself?

[Citizen Rules]

My last post on this as we're just talking past one another and getting no where fast. A: I keep saying the ratings are likely not going to stay that way for Reagan. I said it would start out that way and there's a chance they would lower when more people go to see it. It doesn't even have to be for a political movie. This happens with practically every movie that has a franchise.OK. I didn't say otherwise to that point. Most all new releases start out higher in IMDB ratings, then drop over time. But that's not what I was addressing in my initial post.

B: Downfall was not a pro-nazi movie. Even if it did attract Nazis at the start, why would they support a movie about Hitler losing and killing himself?Downfall was just an example to counter your argument here:
To be fair, the audience rating is largely going to be made up of the first people who go to see the movie. In this case: it's conservatives. and here On top of that, why would liberals pay to see a movie about a conservative president right before election day? You can have the last word I'm not into debating/arguing and I need to get some work done today.

[KeyserCorleone]

My last post on this as we're just talking past one another and getting no where fast. OK. I didn't say otherwise to that point. Most all new releases start out higher in IMDB ratings, then drop over time. But that's not what I was addressing in my initial post.

Downfall was just an example to counter your argument here:

and here

You can have the last word I'm not into debating/arguing and I need to get some work done today.


I fail to see how that's a good example. Downfall was a movie against something that almost everyone is against, and Reagan is a movie about a conservative president released in a heated political time. People will flock to either love or hate something in an age where half the country says that America's economy will collapse every election.

[Captain Steel]

I was wondering if you could tell by the cast if this was a "conservative"-based movie?
The only ones I know who are outspoken conservatives are Dennis Quaid, Jon Voight, Pat Boone and Kevin Sorbo.
I have no idea about the leanings of anyone else in the cast.

(And I notice that Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Gary Sinise, James Woods, Dean Cain, nor Scott Baio are in the film.) ;)

[KeyserCorleone]

Kevin Sorbo.


Least surprising, really. But it's about time the guy got a higher-quality movie than what he's been getting. I met him once at a comic-con and I really think he should make a return to mythology movies.

[Citizen Rules]

Just for fun some other presidential movies with their IMDB ratings:

JFK (1991) 8.0
Nixon (1995) 7.1
Jimmy Carter Man from Plains (2007) 7.2
W. (2008) 6.3
Lincoln (2012) 7.3
and what the heck
Vice (2018) 7.2

[hownos]

The fascinating thing about Reagan's career was that he won the California governor's race in 1966. No one gave him a chance including many of his Hollywood friends who thought it was a joke. But he won easily.

[FilmBuff]

Just for fun some other presidential movies with their IMDB ratings:

JFK (1991) 8.0
Nixon (1995) 7.1
Jimmy Carter Man from Plains (2007) 7.2
W. (2008) 6.3
Lincoln (2012) 7.3
and what the heck
Vice (2018) 7.2

If you really want to understand the difference in quality between all of these movies, just consider that all of the ones you've just mentioned were directed by Oscar-winning directors - Oliver Stone, Jonathan Damme, Steven Spielberg, and Adam McKay.

The only nomination Sean McNamara has received was a Golden Razzie Award for Worst Picture for The King's Daughter

[KeyserCorleone]

If you really want to understand the difference in quality between all of these movies, just consider that all of the ones you've just mentioned were directed by Oscar-winning directors - Oliver Stone, Jonathan Damme, Steven Spielberg, and Adam McKay.

The only nomination Sean McNamara has received was a Golden Razzie Award for Worst Picture for The King's Daughter


I'd like to point out as well that all of these movies are at least a few years old. They've had time to age for more people to simply "check out" the movies past their prime, and thus the ratings become less one-sided.

[EnterTheCinema]

I tend to be skeptical of biopics.


Is this historically accurate?


Does it try to be impartial?


Does it give any insight onto their life aside from the basics I could look up on Wikipedia in 10 mins?