IMDb user comments for
The Reagans (2003) (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

41 comments in total

---

25 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
This is "right on". No wonder conservatives buried this, 6 December 2003

Author: normbeau (normbeaulieu@attbi.com) from Boston, Massachusetts

In the beginning, I was a fan of the Reagans, but over his administration, things that are illustrated in this movie came to light and my opinion drastically changed. As far as the acting, James Brolin and Judy Davis have these characters nail down perfectly. No matter what you think of this movie, you can't deny they do an excellent job. Judy Davis, after her turn as Judy Garland, is the new Meryl Streep of taking on and transforming herself into a totally different character. Three cheers to here. As far a Brolin goes, I never really thought much of him as an actor, but he has changed my mind with this performance. I really think I'm watching Reagan. Amazing.

There were two points in this movie that gave me a positive insight into Nancy Reagain. First was the point in the movie where she visits her mother in the nursing home and she grabs onto the words of her mother that say "I love you". You can see Nancy grab that and give her true feelings back. Unfortunately, the mother was telling everyone "I love you", which puts Nancy back to her normal cold self. What this did show me though was that Nancy was like she is probably due to a total lack of love and saying so in her childhood. I hope her kids understand this now.

The second positive thing I saw, which I hope was accurate, was her grief and concern over the Aids epidemic. I think she felt the effect of this, but she couldn't get her husband to accept this and talk about it.

Overall, I thought this was excellent and wasn't as "over the top" as I was led to believe.

---

18 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Actors can play presidents, 29 May 2004

Author: john c griffin (jgil@insightbb.com) from Chatham IL

James Brolin's portrayal of Ronald Reagan is easily the best I have viewed. Judy Davis was very good too in her portrayal of Nancy Reagan as she captivated Nancy's personality just as I would imagine it as Ronny's strong right hand. Viewers who criticize this as a "hatchet job" should either get their head out of the sand or read a history book because it is a well known fact that Ronny was an out of touch, hands off president who deligated power so recklessly that it finally got him in big trouble in the infamous "arms for hostages" debacle that casted a dark cloud over his final days as president. It is also well known that in his final years he was often in a memory lapped fog as his mind and memory were slowly degenerating in the early stages of undiagnosed Alzheimer's Disease. This was very apparent when he was interviewed about his role in the "arms for hostages" and he had a blank look on his face as he stated that he couldn't remember anything. Not long after that, his doctors finally diagnosed his condition and he made his final farewell speech and stated that he was going to "ride off into the sunset". He will always be remembered as a great president in spite of his flaws. This movie did a great job in showing Nancy and him, with all their blemishes, in a fair and accurate portrayal. It is also common knowledge that they had a poor relationship with their children and were somewhat cold and distant to them -especially Nancy being cold to her 2 stepkids by Jane Wyman. She was known to be quite jealous of Ronny's first wife and unfortunately for the 2 kids, they had to take the brunt. Knowing alot about this couple in advance made me enjoy the movie all the more, because it did not seem to pull any punches or gloss over their faults but also portrayed their good side too. James Brolin did such a good job of looking and acting like Ronnie that he deserves special recognition. My respect for him as an actor increased multifold after viewing this movie and it will remain as one of my favorites. Definitely a "10" out of 10 in my opinion. Banning this movie from television (it was originally a made for t.v. movie) was ridiculous and those who criticize this movie should have their heads examined!!

---

20 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
A Necessary Watch, 11 June 2004
Author: Charles Errolls from Castro Valley, California

In the aftermath of Reagan's passing, the entire media is hurriedly engaged in rewriting the truth about this highly-flawed but interesting man. Virtually all of his significant errors, short-comings, and failures are being sanitized, and as his canonization completes itself the myths that remains will be a sham. Every citizen who values the truth should buy this DVD now and watch it before it disappears, just like the truths it reveals are disappearing.

In this remarkably factual production we learn about Reagan the actor, capable and pleasant. We also learn that he snitched off his pals to the HUAC. We learn that during the war he made movies in Culver City for the Army, and later had trouble finding work, finally winding up as GE's spokesman for Death Valley Days on Television, a medium he always held in contempt.

We watch his disdain for the IRS grow as his income skyrockets, and how it matures into a complete repudiation of the Federal Government. And as his resentment of the Federal Government grows, we witness how the shadowy rich seduce him into becoming their tax-cutting puppet, from the Governship of California through 2 terms in the White House.

Most importantly, we learn the truth about the most dysfunctional family ever to inhabit the White House, based largely on Reagan's shocking disinterest in his own flesh and blood.

Mainly, however, we learn the truth about Nancy. Let's just say that the truth as it is revealed here eclipses everything that you though you knew about this shrewd and manipulative woman.

This film contains the truths about Reagan that the Modern Cons don't want you to know. The source-work for this film is beyond reproach, with most of it coming from the writings of Reagans children first published years ago.

Production wise, it's great. James Brolin is uncanny in his capture of the Reagan personna, and he delivers a performance that is charitable and kind. I think it's his best ever. The other performances are equally as good.

Bottom Line: The truth is out there, and this is it.

---

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant...plain and simple, 5 June 2005

Author: Robert W. (Robert_duder@hotmail.com) from Ontario, Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Late last year I hyped Jamie Foxx's role as Ray Charles as the best I have ever seen. Second best and very close second is James Brolin in his drop dead amazing portrayal as President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Robert Allan Ackerman brings us the much hyped, controversial film The Reagans.

The Reagans basically begins with Ron meeting Nancy in a chance encounter years before the Whitehouse when they were both in Hollywood. We see younger Ron's passion and fire when it comes to Government and politics and we are shown his gradual rise to the top of the political parties through his defeats and eventually his greatest win of all. The movie then shows us the inner workings of one of the most controversial Presidencies. Hostages in Iran, an attempted assassination, "Star Wars" the missile defense system, and the end to the Cold War. All these issues and far more are dealt with no holds barred, showing both sides and also giving us the pros and cons of Reagan's decisions. At the heart of the film is the relationship between Nancy and Ron. Nancy is portrayed as overbearing, shallow at times, over confident, strong, dedicated, outspoken, controlling...her character is as anti-hero as it is hero at times. You have mixed opinions of her which is quite realistic to most peoples opinions. The film takes us right to the end of The Reagan Presidency showing us a man's legacy and a husband and wife who ran the country.

James Brolin embodies and becomes Ronald Reagan. His character is just frighteningly exact which makes the movie so much more amazing even if the rest of the cast wasn't as good and the story lacked something, Brolin's performance could have carried it. Fortunately the story was wonderfully written and dealt with covering every major event in the administration and Reagan's early years. If anything the events they covered were a tad too brief but it never jumped around to the point of confusion and kept a decent pace. Judy Davis who I thought bore a striking resemblance to Annette Bening but nonetheless played the most controversial of the characters with Nancy Reagan. To me it is easy to see the level of controversy that The Reagan family and the Republican party would have had with this film. The family is portrayed as broken, and a casualty to Ron's emphatic political beliefs and macho image. Nancy is portrayed as only a staunch supporter of her husband no matter what she has to do to provide that support and at what cost to her children. Their daughter played excellently by Zoie Palmer is the best example of their tragic existence in this political family and atmosphere. The film holds no punches and in the end takes a slight turn towards being non partisan by slipping in the big picture damage that some of the decisions Ronald Reagan made had on the American way of life. Still the film is hands down one of the best political films or biographies I have ever seen if not for the sole reason of James Brolin and Judy Davis. Through all the chaos you feel pity and joy with these characters. This a must see especially for anyone interested in history of politics. An amazing supporting cast, and amazing storyline as well. 9/10

---

19 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
If I were Nancy Pants, I wouldn't be happy, 30 November 2003
Author: JohnnyCNote from Jacksonville, FL

But then, Miss "Just say no" was not happy about a lot of things. There's no telling what might have really been said behind closed doors, but when one compares the historical record with this docudrama, it's hard to imagine how else it might have been. If you're a die-hard Reagan fan, you probably will not like this. Personally, I think it's dead on, but that's just an opinion.

Far more controversial docudramas have been shown, but CBS caved into pressure from the Reagan cultists. That shows the power of the Reagan myth. I might add that I used to be a Reagan supporter, but after he was elected president, I changed to independent....

---

21 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Bravo to Showtime, 23 January 2004
Author: yenlo from Auburn, Me

All I can say is Bravo to Showtime for airing this picture. There seems very little doubt now (and not because of this movie) that what was depicted in this made for TV film is accurate. Ronald Reagan was a spaced out old man residing in his own private La-La Land who had a great PR campaign to buffalo the American people into believing that he was running the country. The GOP and conservatives objected to this film. Well boo-hoo! It was made and shown. Isn't that what America is all about? Or is it about what conservatives only want?

---

21 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
A fair and accurate portrayal of a pathetic president, 30 November 2003

Author: Maga from The Greater Southwest

CBS really dropped the ball when they caved in to the right wing of this country by pulling this film. God Bless Showtime for having the courage and good sense to show it. To be honest, this movie confirmed more than enlightened. I always knew that Reagan was a simpleton who was dominated by a fanatical and crazed first lady. He was a President that prayed and then cut off funding to hospitals. He praised nature and then gave the go ahead for strip-mining operations. He ran up the biggest deficits of all-time and had no compassion for anyone that made less than six figures. This movie exposes this fraud for the joke he was and is. Brilliant! **** out of ****. Oh yeah, he was the family values President who was the only President to get a divorce.

---

16 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
TAUT DRAMA OF FAMOUS PRESIDENT AND HIS LADY, 3 July 2004

Author: Mitch-38 from Houston, Texas

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

*May Contain Spoilers, Cookies* Stirring biopic of the 40th President and his relationship with his wife, family, friends and the nation. James Brolin and Judy Davis, as Ronald and Nancy Reagan give four star performances, and each worthy of an Emmy nod. It traces their special relationship throughout their heydays in Hollywood, Ron's eventual capitulation to the ideology of the GOP, and the political bug they develop. Also, their sometimes stormy relationships within the family, friends and the political cohorts they attract. One can feel nothing but admiration for Nancy (Davis) Reagan, who defends and protects her husband from some of the murkier characters in the political circle. Donald Regan is portrayed as an absolute fiend, the father of the hair-brained and highly illegal Iran-Contra mess. The actors who portray Ed Meece, James Baker, et al, as Al Haig refers disparagingly as "The Troika," are exceptional and show political cronyism at its best (or worst). Michael Deaver is showed in a sensitive light, despite his legal troubles for lobbying on behalf of Canada and South Korean interests after he left government service. Zoie Palmer, who portrays Patty Reagan, does an incredible job as the misunderstood and oft-ignored daughter. Maureen Reagan's character was tastefully and tactfully created, and Shad Hart gets major kudos for his turn as Ron, Jr. The big bouquets go to James Brolin, who gives his best performance in years, as Ronald Reagan and Judy Davis as Nancy. Brolin embodies the character with fervor and not caricature. We don't get the massive head bobbing and "aw-shucksism" we've grown to be tortured with by bad impersonators. He is a man with a mission, and a kindly fellow at that. We may highly disagree with where he's going, but we've no doubt the man actually believes in the direction he's chugging. Judy Davis fleshes out the character of Nancy Reagan so well, it can make one shudder. She strong as steel, tender as fresh grown flowers and everything else within the mix. The point of mockery at the Washington Press Club, where Ronnie describes it as: "The nicest lynching we've ever attended..." Shows Nancy at her finest, where she meets adversity with an equal hand and a fine sense of humor, to boot. THE REAGANS offers an intimate, though not always complimentary view into the lives of the fortieth President and his lady. It's certainly a fine motion picture, and truly not deserving of the awful, heavy handed attempt at censorship by the Corporate and political power mongers. This kind of disgusting muting of creative thinking hasn't been pulled out of the moth-ridden closet, since America's flirtation with fascism in the McCarthy era. Don't let the stiff armed salute givers or those who wish to build their political empires on the Gipper's legacy give/tell you a bum steer. Watch this stimulating movie, and decide for yourself. After all, it's democracy. We know this might bother some, who are busying themselves with the sanctimonious deification of the man. Yet, we should never fall short of the sight, that he was indeed a man, after all. Roses all around for this movie.

---

13 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
A Dysfunctional Family, 30 November 2003

Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS.

"The Reagans" is the right title. The movie has less to do with Reagan's political career (and doesn't even touch his acting) than it does with familial relationships, mainly the bond between Reagan ("Ronnie") and Nancy ("Mommy Pants"). We get to know something about the kids too, although I frankly got some of them mixed up at times, since they're played by different actors at different ages. Of the political staff I have a clear image only of Mike Deever (Ivanek). The other actors look nothing like the actual people they are playing, which may not be a problem for younger viewers who never heard of Jimmy Carter let alone Alexander Haig.

I found it kind of surprising actually. No one is painted as thoroughly evil, but every character in the drama is flawed in one obvious way or another. The reason I found it surprising is not that it doesn't ring true. After all, everyone is flawed in some way, except for me.

The main reason I found it surprising is that this is a movie chiefly about living people, people who know the meaning of the word "litigation." I'm truly surprised anyone could get away with something like this -- that is to say, something other than a hagiography. The same thing that makes the movie surprising is what makes it less believable than it should be.

What I mean is -- this is a script with dialogue, some of it reproducing casual conversational exchanges from forty or fifty years ago, and some of them rather nasty. But who can remember what he or she said over lunch on, say, December 12th, 1958? Here are a few snippets of dialogue I made notes of, just from the first half hour. I'd have written down more of them from the remaining two and a half hours but I'm not being paid enough.

Nancy's mother: "Hollywood is nothing more than wall-to-wall Jews, queers," and something else. Same source: "You weren't cut out to be a housewife. Kids are little monsters." Same source: "We just love it in Phoenix. All we do is drink martinis, go shopping for jewelry, play golf, and sit around the pool." After a party: Nancy,"There was a lot of money there tonight." Ronnie: "Yeah. I've never seen so many rich people." Nancy: "And old money." At one point, Ronnie says: "I'm an actor, not a politician." When the family moves into the governor's mansion in Sacramento, a stately Victorian, Nancy's mother looks around with distaste and says, "You're not going to live in THIS relic, are you?" Nancy's father: "It's a firetrap." Nancy: And the neighborhood is just terrible, and the schools are no good."

I just find it hard to believe that these words are accurate. Words "to that effect", yes -- whatever that means. But those specific words?

Of course the words that were spoken in public are recorded for all time on videotape or paper somewhere, so there's no reason to doubt them. On the other hand, public speech from politicians is mostly blather and not very informative.

So, anyway, how do the Reagans come across? Rather disjointedly. It's not a particularly good script. Reagan's character is at least written as consistent. He's a nice guy who keeps having recurring nightmares about trying to save people. (Who said that?) He hates arguments and doesn't like to say no to anyone and he never gets angry. (Nothing in there about shouting, "Mister Chairman, I PAID for this microphone," or, "Mister Gorbachev -- tear down this wall!") Nancy, though, is turned into a snooty bitch both by the script and by Judy Davis. Nothing is good enough for her, including the White House china selections bought over the years by Mrs. Truman, Mrs. Taft, etc. "We might as well use paper plates!" She truly loves Ronnie -- no question -- but aside from that she is given only one touch of humanity. She tries to talk to Ronnie about AIDS when her beloved hairdresser dies of the disease. (He's not interested.) But this is inconsistent with her character as written because she is nowhere shown with even a hint of a social conscience.

Brolin does a professional job as Reagan, and Davis swishes through her part with a vengeance. Every other exit line is a snotty comment. The kids are hard to tell apart except for Patti, who has guts, and the grown Ronnie who has become a ballet dancer of all things. "Nothing wrong with being a dancer," Reagan tries to convince himself and the press, "Look at Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly -- real men." And Patti has a good moment watching her Mom on TV during the "Just Say No To Drugs" campaign. "Where were you THEN?" asks Patti, taking a big toke off her joint. Actually, there's quite a bit of humor in this longish film. After Reagan's bombshell of a Star Wars speech, a reporter calls Deever "for comment," and asks, "You know where he got the idea? Ever hear of 'Murder in the Air'?", and the reporter looks down at a VHS of the old Reagan movie. Says Deever, "Great flick."

Since I don't want to run out of space I will simply recommend watching it. I'm not sure I'd want to see it again, but it's a real curiosity. Gossips may get more out of it than I did.

---

15 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Good Docudrama, with Excellent Acting, 1 December 2003

Author: Ron Smolin (rsmolin@ix.netcom.com) from Philadelphia

Despite all the bad mouthing of this television movie, I was surprised by the quality of the film, the actors, the editing, and production. I think it ranks with many other good docudramas, telling the story of Ron and Nancy Reagan's life together, from mainly the perspective of Nancy and her quirky, ambitious, controlling personality. Was it a fair and balanced portrayal? Well, only those close to the Reagans can tell us, but it seemed fair to me, pointing out the strong and weak points of both characters. James Brolin did a superb job of acting --I thought it was Emmy material. And all the supporting family members and White House staff (etc.) come across fairly well drawn. Al Haig's character comes off right on! I hear criticism that the characters were one-dimensional, but I didn't find that to be the case at all. I thought it was worth an 8 out of 10.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history