> Ubiquitous wrote:
> Ernest Hemingway once said, “An intelligent man is sometimes forced

> to be drunk to spend time with his fools.”
>
> This is especially true when watching foolish movies.
>
> Introduction to characters in any sort of medium is vital to
> establishing how we are to see them. Comedic genius Gene Wilder
> understood this: When Willy Wonka came on screen for the first time

> and did athletic flips while with a cane, Wilder wanted to tell the

> audience that Wonka could not be trusted through the entire film.
> Character portrayal is essential to a character-driven movie. On
the
> other hand, shows that are action-driven or are comedy-driven focus

> on special effects and delivery of the comedy.
>
> For shows that focus on the presidents — it’s essential that we
> feel, laugh, cry, and grow with them
>
> Not in the film adaptation of Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Reagan.”
> There is one man we are supposed to feel empathy for, but it isn’t
> President Reagan.
>
> “Killing Reagan” opens with a Jimmy Carter rally in Nashville,
> Tennessee, as he hits the campaign trail for re-election in the
1980
> campaign. A shadowy and nervous John Hinckley Jr. watches. Holding
a
> gun, he soon departs, only to be caught by security. Voila. That’s
> the beginning. Though the acting is wooden, there is no mystery,
> there is no drama.
>
> If our introduction to Carter is to give a brief sense of threat
> against him, then our introduction to Ronald Reagan is the exact
> opposite. Sitting down with campaign aides, Reagan watches the
news.
> He sees a news clip of protestors confront him. “You’re just a
> racist about trying to get into the White House,” yells a black
man.
> “Go back home! “Go back home!,” they start chanting.
>
> Reagan orders the television turned off. No more of that. It’s all
> we need to know. “It would be nice if you could just stick to the
> script,” screams advisor William Casey to Reagan. So much for
unity.
> So much for truth.
>
> For the record, there is no evidence of Casey ever even remotely
> saying such a thing to Reagan. Hell, most of the time people could
> not even understand Casey, as his picked up the nickname “Mumbles.”
>
> The movie then skips ahead to twelve days before the 1980 election.

> Reagan, the Great Communicator, is depicted as a bumbling mess. He
> stumbles, loses focus, and loses patience as his debate prep tears
> him apart. He gets visibly angry.
>
> That is how we’re introduced to the Gipper. The successful actor,
> the successful talk radio host, the successful two-term governor,
> and the near-successful nominee of the 1976 Republican Convention.
>
> There is also a hint of the missing Carter Briefing Books, but it
> was me who reveled the truth about the books in “Rendezvous with
> Destiny” and proved that they were of no help whatsoever to Reagan
> or his team. Alas, the movie doesn’t even get the history right.
> Reagan’s 1980 debate prep, organized by Jim Baker, went well. His
> first debate prep in 1984 went poorly.
>
> Meanwhile, John Hinckley Jr. — stuck at home — goes into the
> basement “to watch the debate,” but in reality quotes Taxi Driver
> and caresses pictures of young Jodi Foster. He agrees to see a new
> psychiatrist, at his parents’ request. At this point, despite the
> obvious creepy vibes, the movie implies how he is not at fault for
> his eventual assassination attempt on Reagan, and, in fact, not in
> control he is of his actions. It’s a sympathetic look at a mentally

> ill man, instead of a look at an evil, near-assassin stalker. He
> calls the young Jodi unsolicited, he “wrestles some demons” as he
> actually tries to see his “girlfriend.” Several times. He buys a
> John Lennon button in New York, then goes to a prostitute to lose
> his virginity. Of course, the prostitute looks just like Jodi
> Foster, which gets his blood up. All creepy, all odd, all designed
> to make us uncomfortable. And yet, about 45 minutes in, the movie
> has viewers sympathizing with him. He can’t get a job (reminiscent
> of our current Obama economy, it can’t be missed), and his parents
> abandon him. He gives his dad a heartfelt, sad farewell speech.
> “Thanks for everything you’ve done for me,” he says, breaking up.
> These anecdotes, one after another, have us see him in a continuing

> sympathetic light.
>
> Reagan, on the other hand, is sometimes portrayed as a buffoon,
with
> a big teethy grin as he leaves a press conference. The film implies

> he doesn’t take the presidency seriously, which is more nonsense.
He
> was known for his one-liners and witty charm and quips.
>
> We don’t come out of the movie with a greater understanding,
> a greater appreciation for President Reagan, or even a
> greater
> hatred for the maniac Hinckley.
>
> When it comes to the almost-killing of Reagan in Killing Reagan,
> it’s undramatic and wooden. There is no build-up to the actual
> assassination attempt. One praise that must be given is the
> recreation of the scene. It looked identical to the news that we
are
> so familiar with, down to one man hopelessly asking for a
> handkerchief as he tends to poor Jim Brady on the sidewalk.
>
> This movie skips days, sometimes months ahead with no transition.
> Only a title transition is slapped on the screen to give any sort
of
> sequence of events.
>
> Even for a TV movie, this is hardly Oscar-worthy acting. The entire

> film falls flat. Even when Frank Reynolds learns that Reagan was,
in
> fact, shot on live television, his response of “He was hit?! My
> God!” is only shown for two seconds, without any lead or follow-up.

> It’s just there, for the sake of being there. There’s no emotional
> connection for the audience, an omission that ignores Reynolds’
> close friendship with the Reagans.
>
> With 20 minutes left in the movie, the most controversial
“evidence”
> that Reagan is suffering from Alzheimer’s (We can’t emphasize the
> quotation marks enough), comes when the doctor informs Nancy that
> Ronnie “may not fully come back,” on account of his age, partly.
> This is only hinted at. The scene takes 30 seconds, tops. It leaves

> a nasty taste in our mouth, and it might as well have been omitted
> altogether.
>
> Yet, the implications are clear. “He’s changed,” Nancy says to an
> aide. We see Reagan losing his temper. We see his hands trembling.
> Though subtly shown, it calls into question the entirety of the
> Reagan years, the Reagan revolution. It calls into question all of
> the 80s, and all of Reagan’s accomplishments. His legacy, the
> influence that Reagan permanently left on the world. In fact, the
> movie ends with Reagan’s letter to the American people in 1994, in
> which he states his diagnose with Alzheimer’s. The juxtaposition
> cannot be missed but nothing could be further from the truth.
Reagan
> came back, like America, stronger and better.
>
> Funnily enough, one of the commercials during this show was a
> trailer to Inferno, part of the trilogy of Ron Howard-directed
films
> based on the bestselling novels by Dan Brown. It’s appropriate; Dan

> Brown’s conspiracy-ridden, juvenile-written books are known for
> historical blunders, factual errors, and insulting caricatures of
> influential people and institutions in history.
>
> Nothing could better describe Bill O’Reilly’s books.
>
> All of the facts in “Killing Reagan” can be found in much better
> material. For one, Del Quentin Wilber’s “Rawhide Down,” which came
> out three years before O’Reilly’s book. That book would have been
> much better, more accurate, and more honorable to adapt. Wilber
> portrays the events before, during, and after that March 30, 1981
> date in an emotional way, and with incredible detail. In fact,
> Wilber was the first to do so. What a movie that could have been!
>
> Instead, one of the first adaptations of “Killing Reagan” we get is

> a shoddy, undramatic movie from a childish, undramatic book that
has
> no factual citations, two dozen sources, and puerile writing.
>
> At the end of the film, the reader realizes there is no big theme
> here. We don’t come out of the movie with a greater understanding,
a
> greater appreciation for President Reagan, or even a greater hatred

> for the maniac Hinckley. We don’t really get any indication of how
> close Reagan actually came to dying. We don’t fully understand Al
> Haig’s gaff at saying he was in charge. We don’t fully feel the
> implication of the Soviet Union during these hours. Instead, when
> the movie ends, it just … ends. Nothing else. We don’t come out of
> it enlightened. That’s not how a character-driven movie should
work.
>
> And that makes it a perfect adaptation for Bill O’Reilly’s book.
>
> --
> BREAKING NEWS
> In other news, somehow Crooked Hillary still isn't in
prison...