MovieChat Forums > The Reagans (2003) Discussion > I'm a liberal, but...

I'm a liberal, but...

posted 20 years ago by ZacAtak83
8 replies | jump to latest

Any film as slanderous as this one supposedly is deserves to be condemned. Granted, Reagan was no saint, his administration was corrupt and several of his policies backfired, but to take this many liberties with the truth (the remarks about AIDS and homosexuals and his calling himself the anti-Christ) is tantamount to libel. Furthermore, that the filmmakers would do this while the man is a.) still alive and b.) too sick to defend himself shows their utter contempt and lack of shame. Normally, I advocate a policy of "if you don't like it, don't watch it." Something of this magnitude, however, should have never been made in the first place.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AcademyAwardWinningMe 20 years ago

Judy Davis is a fabulous actress! For her role as Judy Garland, she was nominated for numerous awards and won every single one. AND, she is the most awarded woman for any one role in a TV movie. Furthermore, she is an intense actress. She plays instense women! Judy Garland was INTENSE! So was her role in Husbands and Wives and so on. The reason she gets these roles are because people know she can handle them. But I don't think she looks like Nancy Reagan, she is far too thin and so on.

"Don't lets ask for the moon... We have the stars"

[–] annehager 20 years ago

Reagan and his administration were corrupt, so why shouldn't he be portrayed that way? Besides which, why should he be exonerated from all of his wrongdoings just because he is ailing? Being sick does not all of a sudden make a person wonderful. Also, one must note that movies were made about JFK and LBJ that did not show them in the best light (yet they were truthful) after they had died. Surely THEY could not defend themselves either. Why should that have ANYTHING to do with it?
And I just have to say, I was very much looking forward to seeing this because Judy Davis is a phenomenal talent - truly one of the greatest actresses of our time. She is brilliant in the film, I am sure.

[–] ZacAtak83 20 years ago

If they want to depict ACTUAL wrongdoings, fine. The producers, however, have no right to make stuff up and pass it off as FACT.

Edit: I'm not pro-censorship, by the way, just anti-slander. How would you like it if a filmmake concluded that because Bill Clinton was from Arkansas, he therefore must be a member of the KKK and they decided to make a "fact-based" film about that?

[–] gline 20 years ago

Wait a second, that's different, he's Bill Clinton aka God.

Ohh, crap, I forget I wasn't a liberal there for a second...

[–] sales-282 9 years ago

Because to do so over - simplistically without taking into acount the multi factors is meaningless , ireesponsible, slanderous and value-less. This was typical lazy sloppy liberal left wing nonsense. sadly the day of detailed story lines and scripts seems to be in the dim and distant past.

[–] fanaticita 7 years ago

This film absolutely confirmed everything I've ever read about the Reagans, from Nancy Reagan's almost obsessive/compulsive protection of Ronald Reagan, to the dysfunctional relationship with the children. The film was too long for one sitting, almost three hours, but I managed.