“Reagan” is the latest biopic about the 40th president of the United States, namesake Ronald Reagan. While it has moments where it shines, it fails to live up to the task of telling the story of one of the United States’ most consequential figures.
It’s awfully hard to make — and indeed, critique — a movie about Reagan without getting into politics. So let’s be clear: My criticisms of the movie are not criticisms of the real Reagan but rather of the presentation of the film’s ideas and the quality of the filmmaking. In both of those regards, the movie fails.
Starting on a positive note, the acting across the board is well done. Most notably, Dennis Quaid gave a convincing performance as president. He can replicate Reagan’s famously soft tone of voice and deliver the classic Reagan lines with just as much ease as the man himself.
Unfortunately, the editing is noticeably bad. The film uses the 1981 assassination attempt against Reagan as a hook to open the film. Then, after some opening credits, the story jumps 43 years later to modern-day Russia. A current Russian spy visits a Soviet-era spy to ask him about the fall of the USSR, to which the Soviet spy responds by recalling all of Reagan’s life. The film then jumps back to 1922 with Reagan’s upbringing. To recap, in the first 15 minutes of the film, it cuts from 1981 to 2024 and back to 1922. It is so jarring to watch that even I — someone quite familiar with Reagan and his story — had a difficult time understanding what was going on.
This isn’t the only issue with the editing, though. It becomes incredibly choppy at times, stitching together multiple takes for each scene. This isn’t unheard of for films to do, but the execution makes these jumps between takes super noticeable and makes it hard for audiences to continue to be immersed in the film at times. Another threat to immersion comes from “Reagan” failing to mask its low budget. It’s clear that most of the movie was filmed on the same set but redone for different scenes; the green screens are painfully obvious, and the final color grading feels cheap.
The Soviet spy continues to act as a narrator throughout the film. This is an awkward narrative tool that is likely used to include specific facts and dates that the writers didn’t know how to incorporate more naturally, such as the discussion about Reagan’s culpability in the Iran-Contra affair. The choppiness of including a narrator broke the immersion of the film for me. Personally, I would much rather have had a coherent film that started in 1922, ended with Reagan’s death in 2004 and didn’t jump around from decade to decade with a narrator ruining the flow of the scenes. This made what should have felt like “House of Cards” feel like “Veep.”
The last third of the film, which focuses on Reagan as the president of the United States, is the strongest part and works fairly well as a political drama. The production highlights some of the shortcomings of the Reagan administration and how Reagan grappled with them to ultimately triumph over different adversaries. This crescendo of an ending features Reagan slowing down due to Alzheimer’s disease, featuring the heart-wrenching scene of realizing he will no longer be able to ride horses due to his condition. The film concludes by showing Reagan’s last ride before retiring his gear. Even though most of the film was mediocre at best, I couldn’t help but feel emotionally patriotic during this scene.
And, for what it’s worth, the film doesn’t shy away from discussing the controversial aspects of Reagan’s career either. It discusses his crackdowns on student protesters as governor of California, his firing of striking air traffic control workers, his role in the Iran-Contra affair and his choice to walk away from a nuclear disarmament deal between the United States and the Soviet Union. While it does discuss these aspects of his presidency, it also glosses over what made these decisions controversial. Some commentary over the dissent around these issues would have made for a more in-depth analysis of Reagan and his legacy.
Noticeably missing is any mention of the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and ’90s, which is arguably the most controversial aspect of his presidency. This is clearly an intentional choice since a discussion of these events could have easily added to the film’s already long runtime of 135 minutes.
This film is effectively Reagan propaganda. If you’re a supporter of his presidency, you’ll likely enjoy this film, but other demographics might find its resemblance to be closer to an advertisement than an informational production. While it has its highlights, I can’t say I’d recommend it to anyone but fans of the 40th president.
