WWTBAM Bored

Even I will admit it tended towards the hagiographic.

But it was fun to see the movie makers' choices. They focused almost exclusively on the big picture of Reagan's life which was the struggle against communism and, more specifically Soviet communism.

I appreciated the shoutout to Whittaker Chambers who, oddly enough, had exponentially more screen time than VP Bush.

You see Reagan reading a book late at night for a decent amount of screen time. Then Nancy comes out and tells him that bed would be more comfortable and looks at the book and says something about Whittaker Chambers.

Meanwhile, VP Bush had just seconds of screen time and played no part in the movie.

I think I have read the book that they based the movie on-Paul Kengor's "The Crusader".

The story was told mainly through the point of view of a , presumably, fictional or composite Soviet character (played by John Voight) who had followed Reagan's career from the late 1940's on. kind of a fun story-telling device.

Others can (and have) make their movies about Reagan's flaws. Like I said this was the big picture of his life which was focused on communism.

It is a surprise that a flattering movie about Reagan was made. I looked up Showbiz Direct, the studio it came from. I guess it's not traditional Hollywood. I don't think this would have been made by anybody in Hollywood. I loved the picture. Brought back a lot of memories. I really like Dennis Quaid, but I thought his performance was a bit stilted, and a lot of the movie was like a caricature, too much information shoved into a few minutes. But they had a lot of material to cover. I guess I'm used to multi-part series that you can binge watch now.

Still, it's good to see a biopic about a conservative that I didn't want to throw my shoe at.