Source: ShowBiz Direct |
To start, it’s shallow in how it depicts American policy. Almost everything the film covers about Reagan’s presidency is tied to communism in some form or fashion. It doesn’t ever consider telling us about what policies he enacted for the American people, and I can’t help but feel that this was a tactic employed by the filmmakers to deviate away from now-controversial topics. The direction is partly due to the book this was adapted from, titled The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. It and by extension, the film, are told from the viewpoint of a former KGB agent in the Soviet Union, making this a weirder biopic than most. Having this outsider's perspective allows for more context of global politics and events in the 20th century, but it doesn’t work so well when trying to tell an All-American politician's story. Beyond that, there are weak insert shots, discontinuity, and stiff performances. The film jumps around from event to event in an attempt to support itself narratively, leading to things getting glossed over or being inconclusive. Other than that, Dennis Quaid’s performance of Reagan feels phoned in and overly gritty, not expressing vulnerability or doubt. Despite the film being set in the 20th century, almost everything is shot with a modern lens that harms immersion. While some parts work better than others, it just all feels disjointed and overly plain. Far from the greatest history adaptation released in the past 20 years, Reagan’s over-focus on global powers means that it doesn’t carry as much weight to the conservative American audience it’s trying to appeal to, and results in an awkward biopic that feels more like a History Channel original than it ought to be. |
Now playing in theaters
A SHOWBIZ DIRECT RELEASE
Comments
Post a Comment