Better Late Then Never

Admirable film.

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This documentary was shown with a leftist viewpoint. Since I was born in 1949 and lived through 12 presidents I have more knowledge gained through experience than those who read about things. The country almost went bust during Carter's administration due to his fiscal policies and lack of respect throughout the world. President Reagan brought back the United States with his tax policies and strong defense policy. The words that basically said it all was that if you tax the workers and give money to those who don't work, people won't work. That is exactly what we've created today with free health care, free housing and free food. Granted, the War On Drugs was a failure just as the War On Poverty was as is the War On Terror. All in all, Reagan was a great leader of the United States. He was at least as good as Eisenhower. The country flourished during their presidencies.

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. .

This film is very bias! It was created by a liberal filmmaker who is trying to make Reagan look horrible. It's a terrible documentary.It skips around things. The film looks at a couple things Reagan did bad as president and it does not even look at all his success he had especially with the economy in fact it actually skews the facts and misleads people a lot. For example: I noticed towards the end of the documentary that there is footage put in there of a news reporter saying something like "7 million more Americans are living in poverty since Reagan took office." Look up the official poverty rate numbers and you'll see when Reagan took office the poverty rate was at 14%. The next year it was at 15.2% due to the bad recession that had started right before Reagan took office and the filmmaker never even mentions the recession. When Reagan left office the poverty rate was at 13%.So the poverty rate was at 14% went up to 15.2% and was at 13% when Reagan left office. The filmmaker clearly adds in the news report trying to skew facts making it look like the economy failed under Reagan. IT IS VERY MISLEADING TO PEOPLE.You should be ashamed of yourself Eugene Jarecki. You are not a respectable filmmaker! There is much more I can call you out on but don't fell like typing anymore.

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.