Watch Reagan For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The first half of "Reagan" is fairly objective, to disguise the fact that this is simply another predictable hit-piece on Reagan, and on conservatism in general.All of the seemingly positive narrators in the first half turn out to be very anti-Reagan in the second half.If the program had ended as it began, with a positive characterization of Reagan, you could almost (but not quite) argue that it was fair. Instead, the second half is obviously there to tear down every positive image of Reagan that is slyly portrayed in the first half. The first half is only there to help tear down every positive image ("myth") about Reagan, in the second half.Pick any Democratic president of the past 100 years--Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt, or even Carter, and you cannot imagine any media outlet producing a negative hit piece like this. But you expect it when the subject is a Republican president (so you should not be surprised or disappointed).The best endorsement of Reagan's success, popularity, and achievements is the left's tireless and relentless effort, even after his death, to destroy him.

You can get a good idea of the film from the other reviews. If you are a liberal or progressive, you'll think it's a good film. If you're conservative and think Reagan did a lot of good while president, you will be disappointed. The first half is good. The film does a good job with his childhood and early years. It is fair regarding his acting career and how he became a GE spokesman when his acting career faded. (By the way, why do leftist posters call him a corporate shill? Many of their lefty media heroes promote for corporations.) The second half is frustrating. We get a taste here and there of the good things that Reagan did, interspersed among a catalog of the supposedly bad things. His probable cooperation with the FBI regarding communists in Hollywood gets the second part rolling. Then his governorship in California gets brief coverage and most of that coverage is negative. On to the reason he's the subject of a documentary: his presidency. This section could have been longer as it should be the main part, but perhaps it didn't need to be any longer than it takes to thoroughly cover his assassination attempt, "Star Wars", and Iran-Contra. We hear several Keynesian economists who say that Reagan's policies were bad for the country, and they actually blame Reagan for the problems we have now. As the film came out in 2011 I guess they prefer to ignore the booming 1980s and 1990s, when the era of big government was supposedly over. Reagan is blamed for deficits caused by increases in defense spending and tax cuts. Not discussed is that non-defense spending skyrocketed and that the Dem congresses always spent more than Reagan budgeted for. Also not discussed is that, after taxes were cut, GDP growth and tax revenues did indeed increase. If you are hoping for a Hayek view for balance you will be disappointed. By the end, conservatives will regret watching. They'll wonder why so little discussion of the many good things that happened during his presidency. They'll wonder why a dramatic economic recovery and major foreign policy achievements get shortchanged. They'll wonder why the contrast between the 1970s and 1980s is skipped. The film ends with criticism that Reagan didn't do enough when the new disease AIDS took off in the homosexual community. Other reviewers praise the "objectivity" but that is because their liberal point of view is dominant throughout the second half. .

ReaganThe reason an actor was chosen to assume the most powerful position in the free world was because he would work for scale.Which explains why the first thespian president featured in this documentary was also a corporate shill.Through interviews with friends, family and other politicians, the 40th President of the United States is placed under a microscope to examine the events that lead the charismatic actor to become Commander and Chief.From his early days as a liberal, to his compliance with anti-communism, and his spokesperson position with General Electric, Reagan's power to rouse patriotism set the stage for the actor's starring role.From the Cold War, to the Berlin Wall, this HBO documentary recollects, reveres and rips apart Reagan's most memorable moments in office.Incidentally, the best thing about being a movie star president is that your stunt double takes all of the assassination bullets for you. (Green Light)vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Ronald Reagan has become such a mythologised figure by the American right that it's hard for a documentary to present a balanced view. Moreover, Americans in general tend to treat their Presidents with a respect that is wholly absent from British politics; although Eugene Jarecki's documentary is actually not bad in challenging the myths (both that everything Reagan did was good, and also that he did everything that has been attributed to him), in it's tone, it can't help but add to them. In fact, it's pretty soft on his early years, and fails to mention that as Governor of California, his trick was really to talk like a conservative but to spend like only liberals were supposed to (although it concedes the same point with regard to his subsequent presidency). On the presidency itself, Jarecki's film delivers a harder verdict, as the critics are far more precise than the admirers, who can only defend Reagan through vague eulogy. It's a bit odd, however, that the final verdict on Reagan's years, and American society, is given by a former military officer who seems no more entitled to pass the definitive opinion than any of the rest of us. One interesting thing for me was to see that Reagan was, at his peak, a genuinely accomplished performer - dismissed as senile by his enemies perhaps before he truly was, he comes across as shrewder than popular perception allows, even if one can dispute the value of his legacy.