The hope for a moving biography does not find fulfillment. Dennis Quaid may fit Ronald Reagan’s performance, but his character is cheesy. There are a lot of “cheesy” in Reagan. Directed by Sean McNamara, the biography approach hits plateaus instantly in Reagan. The film covers most of the important events (in Reagan’s lifetime). It does so in the most out-of-focus continuity of writing I have ever seen. Do not expect a chronological order of a compelling timeline in Reagan. Expect one of pure mediocrity with the intent to add more layers of boredom. Reagan has historical value that fails to find its program of importance.

The film intends to tell the story of Ronald Reagan’s early years and his process to reach the Oval Office. The film’s first-person focus is Viktor Petrovich (played by Jon Voight). He is an ex-KGB agent. He is the one who narrates the moving parts of Reagan’s legacy. Reagan keeps becoming a blur.

Reagan‘s continuity continues in its downfall tracks of not keeping its audience in attention mode. It jumps between everything. His days of Hollywood, politics, relationships, childhood, and none find their correlation. It only continues to a road of questions. Even the dynamics Reagan had with his wives are aggravating. They do not hold solid ground. The first was Jane Wyman (played by Mena Suvari), and the second was Nancy Reagan (played by Penelope Ann Miller). They are around in the film and throughout the film’s mixed events. Chemistry has no establishment.

It jumps to try and find the lights without proper build-up. Timelines are skipped, reversed, and picked up. The many accomplishments audiences may expect are ones they are bound to not see in Reagan. Expect the film to transition to the showcasing days of Reagan. For clarification, the entertainment industry is the factor that shines faithfully. Overall, it still is a bust.

Reagan’s biography seems to be a jumble of historical events without a clear purpose. It presents a disjointed outline of events and jumps around randomly. What’s the point? Why are some events emphasized over others? Where is the faithful recounting of his life? It seems as if Reagan’s biography had intent for entertainment rather than historical accuracy.

I feel the central historical side was hearing the narration from Voight’s performance as Victor. It seemed that narration delivered more believability than the events of Reagan. His narration leads to a voice of having the audience in tune (while the rest of the film continues its plummet). It soars with the seriousness of Voight as Victor. It falls rapidly with Quaid as Ronald. The characterizations are in their lanes.

I do not hate Reagan, and I do not love it. I question its pattern of continuity truly. Can there be moments of examples to give its audience perspective on why there are sporadic events? There could be, but the development of understanding was not a focus for Reagan. It is only keen on trying to make a character of revolution. It does a poor job at that. One-and-a-half out of four stars for Reagan.