A new movie opened this past weekend: Reagan, starring Dennis Quaid, Penelope Ann Miller, and Jon Voight. The movie puts a positive spin on Ronald Reagan, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that professional critics have been trashing it. What may surprise the leftists, though, is that, if Rotten Tomatoes is any guide, ordinary Americans love the movie.

Here’s how the movie’s website describes what awaits moviegoers:

REAGAN captures the indomitable spirit of the American dream...

From dusty small-town roots, to the glitter of Hollywood, and then on to commanding the world stage, REAGAN is a cinematic journey of overcoming the odds. Told through the voice of Viktor Petrovich, a former KGB agent whose life becomes inextricably linked with Ronald Reagan's when Reagan first caught the Soviets’ attention as an actor in Hollywood, this film offers a perspective as unique as it is captivating.

Dennis Quaid brings to life a story that transcends the boundaries of a traditional biopic, offering a profound exploration of the enduring impact of the power of one man who overcame the odds, sustained by the love of a woman who supported him in his journey.

Clearly, the movie is in the mold of old-fashioned Hollywood biopics about admirable figures. And by any metric, Reagan was the quintessential American success story, one that deserves to be told respectfully.

The professional critics, most of whom hew left politically, were disgusted by the whole thing. Here are some takes from those identified at Rotten Tomatoes as “top critics”—which should be understood to mean “widely read critics”:

New York Times: The review suggests the movie is inaccurate because it dares to say that Reagan’s presidency led directly to the Soviet Union’s fall and dismisses it as “a plodding film, more curious than compelling.”

The Hollywood Reporter: The review again takes umbrage at Reagan’s role in bringing about the Soviet Union’s downfall, this time because Putin (decades after Reagan’s presidency) has brought about “the return to KGB values”) and says that no one seeing the moving should expect “a sharp, lively piece of cinematic entertainment,” unlike the awesome anti-Reagan film with James Brolin and Judy Davis.

RogerEbert.com: The review opens by informing readers that Reagan’s clear style of communication was as likely to have resulted from his being simple-minded as from his being a great communicator and complains that the movie is a “relentless hagiography” with “dull filmmaking” and “clunking dialogue” that’s a “slog” to watch.

The Saturday Evening Post (once the quintessential small-town American publication): The review challenges the simplistic script and again takes umbrage at the claim that Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for the Soviet Union’s downfall, although it acknowledges that the film (unlike most hagiographies) acknowledges the Iran-Contra affair and Reagan’s roll in it while conceding that Dennis Quaid does a great job.

Image: Theatrical release poster. Fair use.

The Chicago Sun-Times: Again, the review attacks the movie for lacking subtly, challenges Dennis Quaid’s acting, and attacks the movie because it doesn’t cover Reagan’s response to AIDS or “his mixed record on gay rights.”

The Daily Beast: The headline tells you all you need to know. “Dennis Quaid’s ‘Reagan’ Is the Worst Movie of the Year. You may have suspected that this MAGA-tinged hagiography would be absolute trash, but it turns out you didn’t think low enough.”

AP: The review gives Randy Quaid high marks but likens the movie to a Saturday Night Live skit, holding that the script is so simplistic that the movie is a commercial, not a biopic. And once again, the review disagrees with the fact that Ronald Reagan was a prime mover behind the Soviet Union’s downfall.

I could go on, but you get the point: According to America’s top movie reviewers, Reagan is too loving (even though it deals with problems such as Iran-Contra), too simplistic (even though it has only 135 minutes to tell the story of a long, rich life) and, worst of all, it gives Reagan credit for the Soviet Union’s fall.

The result of these reviews is that Rotten Tomatoes holds that, taken together, the professional critic gave Reagan a 19% positive rating—and that’s despite adding in positive reviews from conservatives such as Michael Medved or Christian Toto.  

I can understand criticisms about the movie’s flashback narrative style or the fact that it tried to cram too much into a single movie. Those are legitimate complaints.

But what seems to power so many of these reviews is that the critics object to Reagan’s being painted positively, whether as someone who communicates with tremendous clarity or whose clear-eyed vision about the Cold War was one of the most powerful engines to destroy the Soviet Union.

As for me, I take professional critics with tablespoons of salt. My rule of thumb is that if a critic at a major media outlet dislikes a film, I’ll probably like it—and vice versa. I developed this attitude long before I parted ways politically with the major media outlets. My disagreements with movie reviewers seemed to presage my disagreements with the politics of movie reviewers.

It turns out that I’m not the only one to part ways with the pros. Here’s the classic screen grab from Rotten Tomatoes:

These verified citizen ratings tell a different story: “Exceptional movie.” “Excellent work.” “Loved this movie.” “A great experience...” “Loved this movie – it exceeded my expectations.” “Important to see a leader who loves America...” “This is one of the best movies we have ever seen.” “A powerful lesson in history...” “It was wonderful.” “This movie is a must see!!”

And then there’s my favorite, which explains why the critics hate the movie:

100% truly historical? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. No film is. But it's nearly close. What's the greater message? Leftism/communism/Marxism is poisonous evil and should be eradicated.

This whole thing reminds me strongly of the media’s shock after Reagan’s death when over 100,000 Americans made the journey to the Capitol building to pay their respects to the man who was a driving force behind ending the Cold War and who brought pride and prosperity back to America after the disastrous leftist ascendency in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. (And even though Nixon and Ford were Republicans, it was the Democrats who drove policy—and drove those out of office.)

I’ll leave you with the 1964 speech that launched Reagan’s political career: