Re: "The Reagans" - An unfavorable review

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:39:29 GMT, Harry Hope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>>From The Star-Telegram, 12/1/03:
>http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/entertainment/7386285.htm   
>
>'Reagans' as boring as it is biased
>
>By Robert Philpot
>Star-Telegram Staff Writer
> 
>Just once, it would be nice to hear someone who takes objection to a
>"fact-based" movie attack it for something other than its version of
>the truth. 
>
>For example, instead of accusing a movie of being biased, the critic
>could say, "It's long and dull, and as superficial as an E! True
>Hollywood Story without being as much fun."
>
>If critics of The Reagans had said that, the movie might have stayed
>on CBS in its original Nov. 16 and 18 slots while the majority of the
>evening's viewers tuned to Law & Order: Criminal Intent. 
>
>Instead, the movie wound up on Showtime, where Sunday evening it took
>up what might be the most attention-getting three hours in that
>pay-cable network's history.
>
>Speaking of biases, I guess I should cop to mine: 
>
>It's against most fact-based TV movies of any stripe. 
>
>It developed last season, when CBS was more into biopics of celebs
>such as Jackie Gleason and Lucille Ball. 
>
>Basically, what we get is an outline of history, not history itself. 
>
>Filmmakers know they've got to hit the highlights -- and the trouble
>is, everyone already knows the highlights.
>
>So it is with The Reagans, which rushes through 40 years of history in
>about two hours and 50 minutes, jumping from the first meeting of
>actors Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis in 1949 to his political
>awakening, to his governorship of California and to his presidency. 
>
>Reagan's handling of student unrest in California gets a couple of
>minutes, as does his shooting by John Hinckley. 
>
>Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign gets about as much
>screen time as her husband's handling of the AIDS crisis (a point of
>contention with Reagan's supporters before the movie was postponed,
>and although a judgmental line about AIDS was cut, the scene still
>isn't exactly flattering to Reagan).
>
>The filmmakers purport to be telling the Reagans' love story, and in
>that they more or less succeed; as played by Judy Davis, Nancy Reagan
>may be a combination of Lady Macbeth and Annette Bening's character in
>American Beauty, but her devotion to her husband is clear. 
>
>Less clear is her devotion to her children, Ron and Patti, and
>stepchildren, Maureen and Mike, who are portrayed with such cartoonish
>dysfunction that I began to wonder whether the TV had mysteriously
>flipped over to an episode of Arrested Development.
>
>Reagan comes off somewhat better, and James Brolin is surprisingly
>adept in the role, although if you close your eyes, you might hear
>Fred Willard's Best in Show voice instead of Reagan's. 
>
>It's still no rose-colored picture of the president, but at least he
>often comes off as a principled, decent, folksy guy -- although he's
>also painted as slightly befuddled, easily manipulated and perhaps
>delusional. 
>
>His Cabinet and advisers, however, come off far worse.
>
>The movie ends with some text in which the filmmakers attempt to
>provide a bit of balance, noting the president's successes in the Cold
>War and with the economy, but also criticizing him on Iran-Contra and
>AIDS. 
>
>Except for Iran-Contra, which takes up the final half-hour, these
>issues are breezed through so rapidly that it's hard to see whether
>there's any balance there. 
>
>So maybe the film's foes had some points, but darn them for making me
>spend three hours trying to see whether they were valid. 
>
>Better the movie had just stayed in its original time slots, and
>Guardian fans had used the pre-emption to discover whether Frasier
>really is better this year.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>
>Harry


I thought it was pretty boring, for sure.

Moreover, I was left wonder what all the hoopla was about. Reagan came
off pretty well in the movie. They showed him as a nice, honest guy
who always seem to try and do the right thing.

Then again, all the hoopla was generated by people who had never seen
the movie or read the script, so their miscalculation is
understandable.