When I first heard about “Reagan,” I could only wonder: how did this film unite $25 million, Dennis Quaid, Jon Voight and the screenwriter of the critically acclaimed Clint Eastwood joint “Space Cowboys”? Then, I saw the trailer — and felt my gut starting to turn. I realized right then and there that I was on a ride to Shitsville and there was no turning back. I suppose it’s not every day you see a conservative-leaning film popping up at the local picture show, much less an American hagiography, so I got off my ass so I could sit my ass down and finally see “Reagan.” By the time the credits rolled and the masses started walking, I could only think one thing: holy shit.
I don’t know whether I mean that in a good or bad way. Obviously, the movie is egregious in every aspect, but I can’t say I didn’t enjoy myself much of the way through. In fact, I enjoyed myself quite a lot, guffawing through sizable portions of the film and the utter technical and story-related shoddiness it forced upon my eyes. Why don’t we start off with arguably the most important part of the film: the actors.
The acting in this film ranges from god-awful slapstick to decent. Quaid and Penelope Ann Miller did decent jobs considering what they had to work with, which admittedly is not much. Voight also did well and his accent is not that bad. I could see him as Petrovich, the Soviet Reagan-lover. That’s about it. Everybody else is either mediocre or showcases as much acting talent as a wet sack of gravel. Two dishonorable mentions are Sean Hankinson, the guy that played Dalton Trumbo, and Mena Suvari, who played Jane Wyman, Reagan’s first wife. When I saw Trumbo on screen, I thought it was Steve Buscemi doing a bad impression of himself. Really! Hankinson overdid his performance and made an utter caricature out of the man and his politics. Suvari, meanwhile, looked like she was doing the same shtick from “American Beauty” and doubled down on the insufferability instead of adding nuance.
I don’t think I can blame the actors that much; I must offload some of that to the director. Quaid, Miller and Voight are all acclaimed veterans in the industry so they can give decent performances no matter who the director is, but I haven’t heard of 60-70% of the actors in this film who are probably fresh out of acting class, taking any opportunity that comes their way. It probably pays well and they have their lines, so why would they judge the content of this film’s character? All they have to do is their best performance according to what the director tells them, which was not much.
I decided to check out the director, Sean McNamara’s, IMDb to see what exciting and innovative properties he’s directed. There were none. He might be a nice guy, but his films can only dream of touching three stars and “Reagan” is most definitely one of those films.
For starters, the cinematography is abhorrent. The shot composition is quite bland, with missed opportunities for eye candy and cinematography that reveals what the character is feeling and tugs at our heartstrings. But, oh my lord, it’s nothing compared to the eye-gouging ugly lighting! There are scenes in this movie where the lighting is so prevalent, it feels like one of those AI-generated joke commercials you see on YouTube! Though that might have also been a fault on the makeup, which was quite inconsistent. No one is buying a 70-something Quaid as a 30-something Reagan. A quick Google search will prove my point. Makeup aside, I ultimately began to accept Quaid as Reagan once the film started to progress until I noticed other problems.
I heard heavy breathing during the scene when Ronald talks to Nancy back at his house about how he observed the waves while he was a lifeguard. I was really confused so I turned off my computer to make sure no one was hiding under my desk. Sure enough, there was nobody. It was most definitely coming from the film. Is this what a $25 million budget buys? McNamara, you have all this cast, crew, time and resources and you don’t hear this? Do they not have quality check down in your neck of the woods?
The music is nothing short of ear-splitting. There is too much of it and it has this ungainly, sappy, bullshitty tone. Music should be like wallpaper — it should never inform the scene, but rather complement it. For instance, take the music in John Carpenter movies. You remember the “Halloween” theme and the score for “The Thing,” but what you don’t remember is how often they’re there. Why? Because there’s only as much music as is necessary.
The editing made me laugh out loud. Firstly, the scenes look unrealistic. The scenes showing news reports, especially in the opening credits, feel like a well-produced YouTube conspiracy video, like what BuzzFeed or Vox would make. Not the kind of feeling you want to keep for this movie. Passage of time is also completely forgotten throughout the entire 135-minute runtime. Sometimes it’s 1976 and then it flashes back to when Reagan is 10 years old and then goes on to something else, and my head can’t help but go in a tailspin. There’s a whole lot of story and just not enough time to tell it. If this is happening to your film, editing is at fault, yes, but so is the actual story.
You never really feel what year the film has taken you to because you don’t get to stew in the environment. It tells instead of shows, which is the biggest pitfall of a good story! I wish the movie had focused on one aspect of Reagan’s life — maybe his presidency, the romance between him and Nancy, his early life or even the last days of his life dealing with Alzheimer’s — and really expounded on it. The movie as it stands doesn’t even show his children beyond their infancy! If I was trying to humanize Reagan, I would show his family: his wife as well as his children. I would expand on how tough it was to be in the Oval Office and deal with public pressure. I would show him having a good time with his friends. Reagan had a very well-documented sense of humor, but it’s barely shown! The only decent joke I could think of is when the general secretaries of the Soviet Union keep dying and then Reagan says something along the lines of, “How can I meet with them if they keep dying?” Although, again, they don’t show him making any attempt to meet the secretaries; instead, the idea is relegated to a clunky bit of humor and montage.
“Reagan” is what some call a “conservative” movie. Much of the cast is either openly conservative or apolitical and even the producer, Mark Joseph, seems to contribute to and produce a lot of conservative media. The movie’s content can very easily be considered conservative; it attempts to portray Reagan in a positive light as well as deliver pro-capitalist, pro-God, pro-freedom and anti-union messages. This is in stark contrast to mainstream Hollywood, where many of the actors and underlying themes of movies are liberal. That isn’t the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with going against the norm and providing something new to the table.
But do you have to make the messaging so blatant? Do you have to turn Trumbo, the writer who got blacklisted, into a communist outcast? Do you have to grab me by my ears and scream about how great going to church is? Do you have to paint Herb Sorrell, the head of the Conference of Studio Unions in the 1940s, as a scumbag who didn’t give a shit about any of the actors because he wanted to strike? Do you have to choke me by my heartstrings with how evil communism is? This movie leaves no space for nuance.
Conservative media can be good, it can be funny. King of the Hill focuses on a conservative family and has arguably conservative themes and ideals, but it’s also relatable, sharply written and funny. Clint Eastwood himself is a conservative and his movies, which have conservative ideals, are usually very well-received.
So, don’t say you can’t make a good conservative movie because you absolutely can. First, however, you need to make a good movie. That means great performances across the board, a well-paced story, captivating dialogue, gorgeous and character-driven cinematography, spare but useful score, immaculate editing, good makeup and special effects and real entertainment value. Did you get that, McNamara? Because if you did, you go out there and make a damn good film this time.
Despite my ranting about how terrible the film is, it’s not every day you see a film like this and find yourself morbidly fascinated by it. On top of that, it’s good fodder for young and hip film students who want to know what not to do when making a historical film. So, even though I probably won’t see “Reagan” ever again, I recommend everyone watch it just once.