Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
Rupert murdoch basically runs both fox news and (as of 2015) the National geographic channel.
Should we start calling this the o'reilly historical fiction channel?
That depends: Can you find specifics in this that are fictional, or are you just assuming it based on the fact you don't like either one?
shareGood question. I'm not an American, but given an opportunity to watch this, I would love to now how accurate Americans think this movie is?
share@littlecartinker -
It's worth the time. It really is a good show. (To be honest, much better than I imagined).
I have read many of the articles that were critical of the book that it was based on, but from what I see, not everything from the book made it into the movie. Although I did not read the book, I did live through it, so maybe that counts for something :)
The movie itself is pretty short, about an hour and forty minutes...but the focus seems to be on the "human side" of the events as opposed to a documentary style presentation. They use actual news footage (Brokaw, Donaldson, Koppel, etc) on occasion, which obviously lends credibility.
While there's nothing new, it does do a good job of showing the tensions/confusion that was going on at the time.
Tim Matheson was very good as Reagan, Cynthia Nixon was good as Mrs. R (although sometimes seemed a little over the top).
The second half is reminiscent of when the president was shot on The West Wing...maybe that's where Aaron Sorkin got the story idea.
I lived through that period as a young adult (the 1980 election was the first election that I was old enough to vote.) From my perspective of "living it" and having followed the news closely at the time, it's my observation that this film was right on the mark in portraying the events of the time.
shareBecause if he claims he doesn't have a problem with Bill O'Reilly, or God forbid watches and likes the guy, his liberal friends won't be his friends anymore.
You know how peer pressure is.
Correct, I don't like either one.
I assume you did minimal research into the books validity though, right? If you did you would see the list of issues that Reagan's former aids have with the books inaccuracies.