Critics Want to Impeach Reagan

The release of Ronald Reagan biopic Reagan was delayed for years—and many critics would have preferred to see it left on the shelf indefinitely. The movie, which stars Dennis Quaid as the former Republican president, currently has a rating of just 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, with many reviewers describing it as a hagiography. The 135-minute movie tells Reagan's life story from childhood to his presidency, narrated by a fictional former KGB agent played by Jon Voight, using an accent that more than one critic likens to Boris Badenov from Rocky and Bullwinkle.

• Nick Schager at the Daily Beast describes Reagan as a "historic dud" and the "worst movie of the year." "Regardless of how you feel about Ronald Reagan the president, most will be united in finding this biopic a preachy, plodding, graceless groaner," he writes.

• Director Sean McNamara largely "sticks to the chintzy feel of small-screen movies from the 1980s," Kyle Smith writes at the Wall Street Journal. "Mannered acting, dismal cinematography, clunky attempts to enhance excitement via gimmicks such as slow motion, and a musical score like a fountain of goo all serve as flashbacks to Reagan-era network schlock." The movie's Reagan "is in hero mode at all times, and less flattering material ... is either left out or handled very briefly." Reagan "deserves a rigorous, in-depth portrayal," he writes. "Reagan instead offers the approach of committed hagiography."
• "So little effort goes into actually exploring Reagan's life that the film plays like a laundry list of accomplishments, not a drama," writes William Bibbiani at the Wrap. "It's a series of one thing that happens, followed by another, often without real connective tissue. There probably hasn't been a presidential biopic this tedious in 80 years, not since Henry King's Wilson back in 1944."

• Joe Leyden at Variety praises the stars' performances: Quaid does a "credible and creditable job of conveying both the gregarious charisma and steel-willed tenacity of President Reagan" and Voight is "surprisingly effective," he writes. "This is hagiography, not history," Leyden writes. "If you accept it as such, you may find yourself mildly engrossed from scene to scene, regardless of your political persuasion."
• Andrew Parker at the Gate would have made some cuts. "Had Reagan done some serious pruning and strictly depicted the president's tenure during the Cold War, there might've been something here," he writes. "Those portions of the film are slanted historically, but in dramatic terms they're the strongest elements here. By taking on too much and trying to frame it to meet a contemporary, laudatory vision of Reagan made by modern day Republicans, the film suffers."

(More movie review stories.)