We unfortunately live in a world where any sort of political position seems to result in backlash instead of discussion. There shouldn’t be anything controversial about reviewing a biopic that covers the life of the 40th President of the United States. The man had a compelling story, starting with an impoverished childhood, running through the Golden Age of Hollywood, touching down on the Red Scare of the 50s, the counterculture of the 60s, and the threat of nuclear war as a result of the Cold War in the 1980s. The fact that there’s so much to talk about May in fact be the key weakness of this film. The script tries to cover so much of Reagan’s life and so many of the key events in his political career, that there’s not really much time to reflect on any of it. This plays like a slideshow reminder for people who lived through the era, and a set of bullet points for younger viewers who only know Reagan from their history books or memes on the internet.
As I said, I hesitate to even discuss the film because people will have knee-jerk reactions to the mere mention of a political figure. On one side you’ll have people who will react negatively simply because they identify with a different political philosophy. On the other side of course, worshipful fans might be too forgiving of the flaws of the film. Everyone will be looking to score some political points one way or the other from the movie. I remain committed to my goal of writing something about every film I see in a theater, so I’m not going to let the fear of opening a can of political worms keep me from putting some words down on this film.
Reagan is an interesting political figure because he was elected president with a 40 state Electoral College victory in 1980, and a 49 state victory in 1984. He was clearly a very popular president, and the film gives us several reasons to see why. The one thing that the film does which makes it worthwhile, is to focus on the character of the president, his sense of morality, and the ethos that drove him. Even if you don’t care for that sort of philosophical bent, I think you’ll have a better understanding of how it influenced Ronald Reagan over his lifetime. The other big thing that the film has going for it is the lead performance of Dennis Quaid. He’s not quite doing an impersonation of the well-known president, but he does get his cadence and intonation pretty well covered. He also presents him as a cheerful advocate for his positions, rather than the impenetrable wall that many biographers have found. If there is a weak performance in the film it is probably Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy Reagan. Her performance feels a little brittle and stagy. Sometimes she seems to be shouting when it’s not completely necessary. I’m sure she has Nancy Reagan’s unfailing love for Ronald Reagan completely covered, but whenever her character steps out of the romantic entanglement and into the larger political sphere, it feels overdone.
There’s a terrific supporting Cast in the film, many well-known character actors get a chance to shine in the spotlight during the course of the story. Nick Searcy is doing a great job as chief of staff James Baker. Xander Berkeley is George Schultz and Dan Lauria does a pretty reasonable impression of House Speaker Tip O’Neill. C. Thomas Howell is also in the film as part of Reagan’s Cadre of advisors. The most significant role in the film, for an actor playing a character part, is the former Russian analyst portrayed by John Voight, using an accent it is a lot more clear than the one he used in Anaconda. This plot line is really the backbone of the film, in spite of its fictionalized nature. His character is telling the story of Reagan from the perspective of an adversarial spy, after the events have already occurred, in an attempt to explain the significance of Reagan’s personality but especially his political ideology. Some of the things that get developed in the story might be the kinds of things that would justify some political shenanigans. This framing story however is not that central to the main character of the film.
Although the film comes from a specialty Film Production, the technical aspects of the film are very solid, and the effects, sets, and photography do not let down the professionalism of the movie. The story is a little schmaltzy because it is trying to cover the entire life of Reagan. It remains shallow as a consequence. I think this would have been a film which could be more successful artistically if it picked a significant event from Reagan’s presidency and connected it to maybe his early anti-communist stance. That’s the approach that Spielberg took with his Lincoln film, and it might have been a better choice for this movie. Regardless of the weaknesses of the script, I do think that the film achieves one of its objectives, namely making Ronald Reagan a real person for a large part of the audience that did not live in his times.
Kirkham A Movie A Day 