3/5 Engrossing but Misses the Mark
  by Dallas L. Keffer (Florida)
James Brolin is incredible in his portrayal of Ronald Reagan. I did not think he would be convincing at first, but within a few minutes into the film, it was like watching the real Reagan!

Unfortunately, there is some fire beneath the controversial smoke this movie generated. Judy Davis gives a competent performance, as written, but she is no Nancy Reagan. Her portrayal was too brassy, more of a "Mommie Dearest" and there was clearly a lack of sympathy toward her by the writers. Davis is not convincing at all, especially beside Brolin who practically WAS Ronnie. I think the film would have done well to consult with the actual people involved before going into production.

My very first presidential vote went for Reagan in 1984. As a gay man I am among few who can say that with pride. He made a lot of mistakes during his presidency, but not one with any mean-spiritedness. His underlings took care of that part of the administration. For all the liberal extremists who constantly bashed Reagan, calling him a war-monger and ideologue, just look at what's happening now. He actually kept us out of war. Reagan was misled and ill-served by many influential people working under him. He was a naive and trusting man, to a fault.

This film did a good job of portraying what Ronald Reagan was all about, until it got to the issue of AIDS. I see why the family protested. Come on, even Patti, who always bashed her father's policies, resented this film's slant on the AIDS issue. The fact is that Ronald Reagan was an old man, born of another era, who did not know how to address matters of sexuality. AIDS automatically implied sexuality. Reagan was also a surprisingly shy man. His silence was often the simple result of not knowing what to say. I once wrote him a strongly critical letter on the matter of his handling of the AIDS crisis. I now know better. Yes, he was slow to respond. But the deaths that followed would have happened anyway. There is still no cure. Sometimes we American's are just too accustomed to "instant gratification".

The film illustrated quite well how Reagan came to be so pro-corporate in his policies. He had been bought out without even knowing it, thinking the big corporations treated everyone as well as they treated him. He never thought anyone could behave in a manner less honorable than his own, except for communists. The fact of the matter is that Ronald Reagan was probably one of the most decent, principled and honorable men ever to hold the office of President. He could eventually even accept responsibility for his mistakes when he recognized them. How long has it been since we've seen a president do that?

I would love to see another movie about Reagan done with more accuracy and balance, and with James Brolin in the lead role.

5/5 A fascinating biopic
  by Anyechka (Rensselaer, NY United States)
I'm just about as politically opposite Ronald Reagan as they come, but I really enjoyed this three-hour biopic. James Brolin is a dead ringer for Reagan in every single way, so much so it's kind of scary. Judy Davis also does a very good job at playing Nancy Reagan. Usually one shouldn't expect too much from a made-for-tv movie, but this is one of the ones that got it really right. There were a great script, great acting from everyone, and good production values. As James Brolin says in the short interview included as an extra, since doing this movie, he's had a number of people come up to him to say that they never thought much of Reagan till they saw this movie, and that his portrayal of Reagan changed that. I'm still far from a fan of his presidency, but after seeing this movie, I now view Reagan the person (as opposed to the politician) in a better light.

This biopic doesn't always go extraordinarily deep (such as, for example, not really explaining just why so many California students hated Governor Reagan so much), and it does leave out some events that would be considered pretty important (such as the Challenger disaster), but the events that are there are pretty comprehensive and well-connected. In spite of some gaps and omissions, this story flows very well and is very compelling. The excellent audio commentary provides even more insight into the people and events, and explains further some of the things that weren't addressed very deeply. I fail to see how in the world this biopic could be considered a hatchet job or an attack on the Reagans. It seemed very fair and balanced to me, and even was a lot kinder to his presidency than it could have been. It shows Reagan as a genuinely nice, affable, personable guy, someone who was never an A-list actor but who was always a great leader and speaker, someone who had charisma and personality. The biopic portrays him as going into politics and switching parties only very reluctantly, and often seeming to be a better husband than father. The black spots in his career as a politician (such as creating a huge homeless problem, voodoo economics, ignoring the AIDS crisis, the Bitburg fiasco, Iran-Contra) are similarly dealt with, but not to the extent that these negative things overwhelm the entire story. It was downright scary to find out in the audio commentary that all of the people raising such a fuss over this movie and wanting to have it banned (even trying to get Reagan put onto the dime to make up for it!) had never even seen it. They couldn't have, since no one had seen the movie yet. They were basing their opinions on a very early script, and apparently didn't realise that practically every movie goes through multiple scripts. And it's no secret that a lot of Republicans view Reagan as a demigod, thus feeling that anyone or anything that doesn't treat him with similar kid gloves is viewed as a liar, unpatriotic, or what have you. And the scariest thing of all was that most people didn't even protest the people who were protesting against this movie and demanding it be censored, even though they had no authority to have any opinion on it, positive or negative, when it had never even been aired yet.

All in all, this is a pretty positive view of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. The producers easily could have made it more sensational and negative, but they didn't. They actually toned down the accounts of abuse (at the hands of Nancy) that Patti Reagan wrote about in her book, and cut out scenes that had raised a lot of the protest, re Reagan's policy (or, more accurately, lack of a policy) on dealing with the AIDS crisis. It even gives him credit for being one of the people who helped to end the Cold War, and also covers a number of his other positive achievements as a politician. I don't even like Reagan as a politician, and I came away from this biopic feeling very positive towards him as a person, and even slightly less negative towards him as a politician. I'd recommend it to anyone with an open mind who wants to learn more about the Reagan family.

4/5 Brolin Great - Judy Davis sucked
  by Garlic Breath (Gilroy, California USA)
I wanted to take this opportunity to compliment to Mr. James Brolin for his performance as Ronald Reagan in "The Reagans."

I finally got a chance to see this controversial movie on DVD.

Let me state that I have a very high regard for the late President Reagan. I voted for him twice, and I think his Presidency was one of the most positive and relevant in American history.

I have read various books on the subject of the Reagan Presidency, including Mr. Reagan's own autobiography. I recently visited the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA.

In my opinion, Ronald Reagan was a breath of fresh air after the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the outpouring of love from the American people at his passing was very moving.

Having said that, I will say that I was pleasantly surprised at Mr. Brolin's performance in the movie. He really nailed it -- the good and the bad.

Unfortunately, I think Judy Davis was all wrong as Nancy Reagan. She played Mrs. Reagan as a "Mommy Dearest"-like characature. Not only that - the real Mrs. Reagan is pretty. Judy Davis is very unattractive. This was a major flaw in an otherwise interesting, entertaining, and even educational movie.

Considering the fact that Mr. Reagan was so close to death and suffering from Alzheimer's when the movie was made, it was totally appropriate for CBS to drop plans to televise it. The timing of the film was awful. Also, the AIDS denouement was truly ridiculous.

It's too bad that Mr. Brolin's performance was lost because of the controversy. He was very good.


1/5 Good but not good enough
  by R. Anderson (Tokuyama Shi, Yamaguchi Ken Japan)
If you are a student interested in acting, then I suggest that you watch this movie because the actors did a fairly good job in a difficult protrayal of such famous figures. However, if you are a history student looking for some insight into the Reagans, then this film is not for you. I recommend that you read "Ronald Reagan: An American Life" written by the former president which provides more information concerning the thoughts and policies of the president. Even though the book is an autobiography, Mr. Reagan does not whitewash any of his mistakes, and you will come to understand why he was one of America's most popular presidents.

3/5 I learn better with documentaries.
  by an amazon fan
I did not know much about Reagan except his attempted assassination, his wife consulting astrologers to help in making
decisions for the country, Starwar's, his memory problems, Iranian bits and pieces, and the Bitburg incident. The movie filled in some of my gaps so it was a history lesson to some extent, but to me, the movie seemed shallow and forced. As for a review I saw which said how how dare they sour the name of one of the geatest presidents we ever had for instance with the Bitburg incident, all I could say is I'm sorry.
This movie was made using public accounts as stated at the beginning, and it is totally true that Reagan said what the reviewer used not as a criticism of Reagan, but as a reason to
portray this president as perfect, and the movie producers as rot. How low can this reviewer go and how low did Reagan go as well to say that the Nazi killers buried at Bitburg were surely as much victims as those in the concentration camps! This reviewer is absolutely ignorant or a twistering idiot. The fact is that Reagan did say the above regarding Bitburg Nazi's and by saying this, Reagan has diminished his moral stature to say the least. See for example 'Chutzpah' by A.Dershowitz, pgs.134-135.