I appreciated this essay, but think it overlooks conservative filmmaker Matt Walsh, who deserves at least a mention. Both illuminating and entertaining, Walsh delightfully skewers and dismantles woke ideologies (recently antiracism, previously gender ideology) through ostensibly benign probing that readily reveals their fundamental incoherence and illogic.
I agree with River, “art is not a democracy”, but this statement illustrates an important point that he seemed to gloss over; The entertainment business is not always art. Thousands of movies each year are produced with the sole purpose to make money by entertaining the masses. Can River honestly say every Seth Rogen film has “depth” (speaking as a former pothead Rogen-watching enthusiast)? This has historically been the dilemma of Hollywood, appeasing the critics and audience members yearning to be challenged or “pandering” to those who need an escape from the shades of gray the real world presents. Sometimes I want to turn my brain off and have the hero be good and the villain be bad, especially as I fume over if it was worth spending $40 to watch a movie (yes, I bought the large Coke and popcorn, but c’mon that’s ridiculous). The beauty is I can see a movie that illustrates moral relativism and initiates a spurring conversation of perspective afterwards, but sometimes I want to leave a movie feeling hopeful, just, and in this case outright patriotic. Art can be a form of critiquing in itself and we need this social commentary in our lives, but sometimes I want to be entertained, sorry I’m human.
So people who have seen the film actually love it, but you leftist writers citing NYC editors think it is terrible...go fuck yourself...the nation can make their own decisions about the movie, maybe it is bad and maybe it is good...sort of like abortion, I cannot support killing babies all the way to birth but alot of scumbag leftists have made that law...killing is just killing!!
I think River Page makes some good points generally, but I found myself wondering what sort of "moral ambiguity" he would have added to "Reagan"? I lived through the Reagan presidency; I voted for him. Did the film leave something out? I don't remember anything about mistresses, influence peddling, or dirty politics during his administration. Maybe it's just me viewing decades old events through my right wing rose colored glasses. It seems to me Reagan was a good fellow.
I have a suspicion Page was really looking for scenes that would show how bad all Reagan's policies supposedly were. In other words, what he really wanted to see was a left wing movie about Reagan instead of a right wing movie about Reagan. I'm not sure the former would have been a better movie than the latter in any objective sense. No doubt everybody who loved Reagan would hate it but the critics would soft-pedal their criticisms of the filmmaker's craft.
I assume I'm not the only one who noticed "Boomer Republican" used to describe Clint Eastwood. Mr. Eastwood was born in 1930, a long way from Boomer time.
When you're a filmmaker and you see your job as educating rather than entertaining, your movie is pretty much guaranteed to suck. That applies whether you're liberal or conservative, or religious or secular.
There's definitely a great film to be made about Reagan, but I fear any movie about him in practice will be a hagiography or a hatchet job, when the actual man was much more complex than either his fans or his critics acknowledge. (Then again, that's how it is with most biopics.)
River - First you knock a movie that portrays America's most popular and effective President of the post-war era. That's bad enough. But then you go on to make an offhand comment about Clint Eastwood. You've gone too far here friend. There is absolutely nothing "run of the mill" about Eastwood and he surely is NOT a boomer having been born 16 years before the baby boom started. Do your research, pal.
Sorry, River. My husband and I enjoyed it. Never thought for a moment that it was terrible. We lived through the Reagan era and the film reminded us of what it was like to have a strong president in office. Reagan transformed me, along with many others, from a Democrat to a Republican.
My husband and I saw it twice. It sucked and we enjoy repeating some of the cringier lines to each other, but it was still refreshing to watch a movie that didn’t ridicule my worldview every chance it got.
Jon Voight has been in many great movies. Years ago.
As for his recent career, well...his involvement in this film was a bad sign. (He's also in Megalopolis, which I expect will also be a complete disaster but the kind of disaster which gains a massive cult following.)
And that’s the point isn’t it? To avoid the ridicule. Too often I get invested in a good TV show, then once the story has completed presenting all the content from the book on which it is based, the woke rewrite starts.
Characters suddenly become homosexual. Women get pregnant and can’t get an abortion. Trans characters pop up out of the blue. Black characters are harassed by the police. It gets tiresome.
I appreciated this essay, but think it overlooks conservative filmmaker Matt Walsh, who deserves at least a mention. Both illuminating and entertaining, Walsh delightfully skewers and dismantles woke ideologies (recently antiracism, previously gender ideology) through ostensibly benign probing that readily reveals their fundamental incoherence and illogic.
I agree with River, “art is not a democracy”, but this statement illustrates an important point that he seemed to gloss over; The entertainment business is not always art. Thousands of movies each year are produced with the sole purpose to make money by entertaining the masses. Can River honestly say every Seth Rogen film has “depth” (speaking as a former pothead Rogen-watching enthusiast)? This has historically been the dilemma of Hollywood, appeasing the critics and audience members yearning to be challenged or “pandering” to those who need an escape from the shades of gray the real world presents. Sometimes I want to turn my brain off and have the hero be good and the villain be bad, especially as I fume over if it was worth spending $40 to watch a movie (yes, I bought the large Coke and popcorn, but c’mon that’s ridiculous). The beauty is I can see a movie that illustrates moral relativism and initiates a spurring conversation of perspective afterwards, but sometimes I want to leave a movie feeling hopeful, just, and in this case outright patriotic. Art can be a form of critiquing in itself and we need this social commentary in our lives, but sometimes I want to be entertained, sorry I’m human.
Feel the same way and ate a tub of popcorn watching it. A tub is $13 now in my movie theater.
You just wanted to criticize something to do with Reagan. It was a good movie.
fact check: false this was a great movie
As for Mel Gibson, I'm not sure a "devout traditional Catholic" would dump his wife.
So people who have seen the film actually love it, but you leftist writers citing NYC editors think it is terrible...go fuck yourself...the nation can make their own decisions about the movie, maybe it is bad and maybe it is good...sort of like abortion, I cannot support killing babies all the way to birth but alot of scumbag leftists have made that law...killing is just killing!!
I think River Page makes some good points generally, but I found myself wondering what sort of "moral ambiguity" he would have added to "Reagan"? I lived through the Reagan presidency; I voted for him. Did the film leave something out? I don't remember anything about mistresses, influence peddling, or dirty politics during his administration. Maybe it's just me viewing decades old events through my right wing rose colored glasses. It seems to me Reagan was a good fellow.
I have a suspicion Page was really looking for scenes that would show how bad all Reagan's policies supposedly were. In other words, what he really wanted to see was a left wing movie about Reagan instead of a right wing movie about Reagan. I'm not sure the former would have been a better movie than the latter in any objective sense. No doubt everybody who loved Reagan would hate it but the critics would soft-pedal their criticisms of the filmmaker's craft.
I assume I'm not the only one who noticed "Boomer Republican" used to describe Clint Eastwood. Mr. Eastwood was born in 1930, a long way from Boomer time.
Republican here who enjoyed the movie. I would give it about an 8. Wasn't the best produced film I have seen in a while, but was worth my money.
The critic bashing is way over the top!
When you're a filmmaker and you see your job as educating rather than entertaining, your movie is pretty much guaranteed to suck. That applies whether you're liberal or conservative, or religious or secular.
There's definitely a great film to be made about Reagan, but I fear any movie about him in practice will be a hagiography or a hatchet job, when the actual man was much more complex than either his fans or his critics acknowledge. (Then again, that's how it is with most biopics.)
River - First you knock a movie that portrays America's most popular and effective President of the post-war era. That's bad enough. But then you go on to make an offhand comment about Clint Eastwood. You've gone too far here friend. There is absolutely nothing "run of the mill" about Eastwood and he surely is NOT a boomer having been born 16 years before the baby boom started. Do your research, pal.
My Bible study group would go see Gran Torino
Sorry, River. My husband and I enjoyed it. Never thought for a moment that it was terrible. We lived through the Reagan era and the film reminded us of what it was like to have a strong president in office. Reagan transformed me, along with many others, from a Democrat to a Republican.
Hagiography??? Anybody else never seen this word before, googled the definition, and practiced pronouncing it?
Of course, but I went to Catholic school.
Sorry, but it is in common usage these days, to describe biographies that are over-the-top reverential.
Hahahaha
My husband and I saw it twice. It sucked and we enjoy repeating some of the cringier lines to each other, but it was still refreshing to watch a movie that didn’t ridicule my worldview every chance it got.
Jon Voight has been in many great movies. Years ago.
As for his recent career, well...his involvement in this film was a bad sign. (He's also in Megalopolis, which I expect will also be a complete disaster but the kind of disaster which gains a massive cult following.)
And that’s the point isn’t it? To avoid the ridicule. Too often I get invested in a good TV show, then once the story has completed presenting all the content from the book on which it is based, the woke rewrite starts.
Characters suddenly become homosexual. Women get pregnant and can’t get an abortion. Trans characters pop up out of the blue. Black characters are harassed by the police. It gets tiresome.
Your criticism of the woke rubbish is valid. But unfortunately so is Page's point.
Absolutely!