vcbaker-37525 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.

Al Rodbell I watched this on Link TV, a liberal cable channel specializing in those such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, so I expected it to be scathing. It certainly stripped away many illusions, but while strongly critical the results of trickle down, and the limits of his grasp of complexity of issues; it defined his positions fairly.He did evolve from a New Deal Democrat, leading his Actors Union against management, but also was viscerally opposed to global Marxism, and the social revolution of the 1960s.The insights of Morris, his official biographer for almost a decade, along with Cannon who wrote several biographies including when he was Governor, provide special scholarly insight.The current Republican conservatives forget that he pass what was an actual amnesty for illegal-undocumented immigrants, and actually increased both government spending and deficits.It could be that his hawkish policies early on allowed him more latitude to connect with someone eager to wind down the cold war, Michel Gorbechev. History doesn't allow for controlled experiments so we can't re-run events with a different leader at the helm.I commend this documentary for those who lived through the era, but events have become hazy.

jmm124567 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.

merrywood A friend in Paris, France, and fellow filmmaker sent me a copy of this new Reagan documentary. Not a great fan of Reagan or his presidency, I set it aside. My friend persisted and pushed me to watch it. I finally did. The film begins with the death of Ronald Reagan after an extended bout with Alzheimer's disease. Then, it returns to his life, starting with his childhood and covering every step of his career from radio announcer to actor to union president and on to his dazzling political career, one that was not easy any step along the way. It is one of the most extraordinary documentaries I have ever seen, the revelation is not in the massive amount of data packed into this film (Michael Moore, take note, please) but its beautifully organized objectivity and most of all, its subtext, that makes a powerful statement about the impact, often world-changing, of the power of the illusion of ideas. This illusion can create and destroy quickly and with great and lasting power.It is recommended not just to those interested in a fine example of documentary filmmaking but for historians interested in objectivity, especially so in the life of the 40th president of the United States.As an important aside, I have had my feelings about Ron Reagan, Jr. (the president's son, who works in the media) confirmed… He is a bright, deep thinker who doubtless transcends his own father's intellect and contact with humanity.