Broadcasting Christmas (2016) (TV) Directed by Peter Sullivan

It's funny to see how many Chrismas movies are out there that feature (TV) journalists as its main protagonist. It got me thinking and it actually makes somewhat sense. Journalists are often looked upon as fake and cold persons, who are detached from the real world. In other words; perfect candidates for a Christmas movie, in which cold people's hearts always warm up and grumpy and unhappy people turn into the happiest, friendliest people you'll ever see. Sure, it's all very forced and far from realistic but these type of movies are never about realism of course. It's all about bringing joy and giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling, while cuddling up with your loved ones in front of the TV while watching the movie. The Hallmark channel has a very good understanding of this and they keep pumping movies such as this one out faster than fake snow from a snow-machine. If you're in the right mood and into movies such as this it's really quite a treat to watch.

That still isn't saying much about its quality though. Aside from being far from original and always quite predictable to watch they also are never the most impressive movies to look it, with its TV quality look. The script, the acting, the directing, it's never among the most impressive things you could expect from a movie but yet it still often serves its purpose, and it serves it well, as also is the case for this movie.

But lets be honest here, this is more a romantic movie than a Christmas movie really. It cleverly makes use of some the typical Christmas themes but in the end it really isn't a movie that's all about the Christmas spirit. It's a story about two people falling in love again, after a long split. And while it's all very tame and predictable it's also very cute and harmless at the same time. You should never expect big twists or any serious drama from a movie such as this, that in its core is still all about being fluffy cutesy entertainment, for the entire family to watch. The story works out quite well due to the characters and chemistry between its two main actors.

There still is no way anyone could ever call this a great movie though. It's just far too predictable and by the numbers for that, Really, is there any doubt in anyone's mind whether or not the two main characters are going to end up together? i mean, I don't want to spoil it but the answer starts with 'yes' and it ends with 'of course'. 15 minutes before the end it also already really starts to become apparent how the movie is going to end, and indeed, it ends exactly in the way you expect it to. The downside of playing things safe, though the lovers of these type of Chrismas movies are obviously not going to care! And rightfully so. Let's be thankful that not ever movie is an heavy and serious one and some movies are still being made to simply entertain and bring joy to everyone, also without thinking about making as much money as possible.

It's good for what is is. Perfectly fine and harmless for the family to watch around Christmas time, or any other time really.


Watch trailer

The Fiancé (2016) Directed by Mark Allen Michaels

Well, this really is one big mess of a movie. I truly don't understand what this movie is trying to do. Is it supposed to be serious? Is it supposed to be a comedy? Anyway, it doesn't work out all, not even in an enjoyable 'bad-movie' kind of way.

It's not just that the movie is a confusing mix of horror and comedy, its story is all over the place at well. It can't ever seem to focus and instead of following one clear main plot line it features a bunch of flashbacks and side-plots in it as well, that are only distracting and really don't add much to the overall movie and main story. It makes things so incredibly annoying and unpleasant to watch that it's actually hard to finish watching the movie.

It's as if the movie is too afraid to be gory and scary, or that it has no idea how to handle this. This explains all of the goofy moments in the movie, that never work out as anything funny. It's weird, in an incredibly uneasy and unsatisfying kind of way.

It of course remains hard to tell if this movie genuinely would have been better as a full blown and more straightforward horror movie or comedy but at least the movie would have had a better focus and more clear style to it. It's now trying to be too many different things at once, which makes this movie a terribly messy and far from effective one.

Thing that also doesn't help much is the fact that it's a very cheap looking and feeling one. It almost has an amateur-like 'quality' to it, with its sound, camera-work, directing and acting. It's still a pretty impressive movie in some ways, such as with its gore and makeup but in other regards it really remains nothing more but a cheap amateur-project, that somehow made its way to DVD. The bad and cheap elements of the movie definitely outweigh the somewhat decent ones.

Just skip it.


Watch trailer

Mercy (2016) Directed by Chris Sparling

Guess that the movie deserves some points for originality however there apparently can be such a thing as trying too hard to be different and a thing of its own. In doing so, the movie becomes a bit messy at times. Not necessarily complicated to follow but more unpleasant to do.

The movie is trying to do a bit too many different things at once. On the on hand it's trying to be a mystery, on the other a drama and then there are some suspenseful thriller elements in it as well. Sounds good and appealing perhaps but it's a combination of different elements that never works out well for the movie. No doubt that the movie would have benefited from it if it focused on being one thing instead. it's now trying to be far too many things at the same time, with as a result that none of the elements work out effectively enough.

But no, this even isn't the main problem with the concept of the movie. As a matter of fact, the first half of the movie is pretty decent, as it builds up the tension and sets up the atmosphere. There is some good mystery-element to it but this very same mystery soon starts to become a problem for the movie. It's keeping you in the dark about things for way too long. You basically have no idea what is going on, or what all of the characters want, which sounds good for a paranoia type of thriller but the movie never gives you enough information to root for anyone or care about anything. It seems to think that by keeping its viewers in the dark for as long as possible people will stay interested and that it should be enough to keep them on the edge of their seats but instead it lets the viewers feel detached from the story and characters of the movie.

Once you do realize that basically none of the characters are necessarily 'good guys' things get even worse to watch. All tension gets ruined when there's no one to root for and you just don't care anymore about what's happening and how things are eventually going to end up for all of the different characters. With everything wrong with this movie, I genuinely believe that this is it's biggest flaw and the main reason why it works out as a mostly unappealing- and far from engaging movie to watch, despite the fact that the movie features plenty of good thriller moments in it.

You still keep the feeling that this is a movie that very easily could have worked out though. It's mainly because its such a good- and professional looking movie, that also features some pretty decent acting in it. There otherwise also really isn't anything 'bad' about this movie, aside from its flawed concept. The execution of the story is pretty decent, which makes it all the more such a shame that the story itself has so many different flaws in it.

It's still far from the worst movie you could ever watch but not one that's really worth your time either.


Watch trailer

Eliminators (2016) Directed by James Nunn

Most action movie lovers already know it by now but Scott Adkins is well on his way of becoming a great household name in the genre. Perhaps he's not as great as a Schwarzenegger or Stallone but you could call him a new Van Damme or Seagal, even though these persons are still around themselves as well of course. He has the charisma, the looks and all of the fighting skills required for the parts, as well as some pretty decent acting skills.

It's too bad that he's stuck at mostly playing in 'smaller' action movies such as this one though. He does play in some big movies, every now and then but never in a leading role. A real shame, since he's definitely capable enough, as he also once more shows with his role in this movie. While the movie in itself really isn't anything all that special, it's still really one that's well worth your time, especially if you're into the genre of course.

No, this movie really doesn't do anything new and never that happens in it ever comes as a surprise but as far as straightforward and cheaper type of action movies go, this one definitely is a pretty decent one. it's well a well done and good looking movie, that never has a boring moment in it, perhaps because of its very same simplicity and straightforwardness. The action is pretty good, as well as diverse. Gun fights, knives, hand-to-hand combat, it's all in here, though it's still pretty laughable to see some of the fights turn into WWE matches, with some insane combo's and moves, that no one would ever pull off in any normal fight. This of course is due to the presence of Stu Bennett as one of the main villains, who is a WWE wrestler and known better under the names Wade Barrett/Bad News Barrett/King Barrett. It's pretty popular nowadays for action flicks to star WWE stars in them, perhaps more so than ever before. Not too many people know of it though, since most movies remain into obscurity and never make it to the theaters.

I still would be more interested in seeing the prequel of this movie though. The events leading up to this movie sounded far more interesting than the actual story of the movie. It had more depth and layers to it, while the story of this movie remains nothing more but an extremely simplistic and straightforward one, even by action-movie standards. It works well for the movie but at the same time it also obviously prevents it from becoming anything truly great or original. It's just never the most engaging movie, though it definitely very easily could have, if only the movie had a bit more depth to it and concentrated a bit more on the dramatic and serious tones of the movie at times.

But no, I still can't be too negative about this movie. It's pretty good for what it is and if you're into the genre there is no reason why you shouldn't give this movie a shot sometime.


Watch trailer

The Remains (2016) Directed by Thomas Della Bella

It's always a shame to see a movie that does a lot of things right, yet doesn't manage to work out as a very good movie. This movie is a perfect example of that, in my opinion.

It's true that the movie in its core and essence really isn't anything all that special. I mean, it features a very basic sort of plot and has a lot of the familiar genre clichés in it as well. Yet it's a pretty good looking movie, that also never comes across as one that got made by people why didn't had a good idea of what they were doing. The acting, the directing, the cinematography, the effects, it's all quite professional and pretty good but the movie obviously is not without its glaring mistakes and weaknesses either.

First of all, yes, it's a pretty big problem for the movie that it's such an incredibly clichéd and standard one, that tries very hard to be like any other modern popular horror movie, such as "The Conjuring" and "Insidious". It brings absolutely nothing new to the table and it's disappointing how the movie isn't even trying to do anything creative or surprising with its main concept and story lines. It makes the movie predictable but not just that, the execution of all of its predictable elements remain lacking as well.

There basically never is a good or effective enough buildup to anything. Not to its mystery, not to its drama and most definitely not to the horror either. It relies too much on its atmosphere and an handful of jump-scares but that of course isn't enough to make a great horror with. And I say an handful of jump-scares, which in this case is literal. There is far too little happening in this movie, especially in regard to its horror. As a matter of fact, if I were living in that house I probably wouldn't even call it haunted but 'odd' instead. Nothing too extreme or scary is ever happening in it (not until the very end anyway). A direct result of its poor buildup and handling of things.

Story-wise, a lot of things just don't add up. There are lots of loose ends and because the movie relies mostly on clichés and things we already are, oh so, familiar with, the movie never seems to feel the need to delve into things and explain every aspect. Because of this the things that happen toward the end of the movie also feel too sudden and far too random. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the ending I would have giving the movie a slightly higher rating Up to that point the movie was a very standard and average one but at least it was one that was a better looking and slightly more professional feeling movie than just the average genre attempt.

Things were really looking good and promising for this movie but in the end it unfortunately is nothing more than an extremely formulaic haunted house flick, that does absolutely nothing surprising or anything to scare you out of your wits.


Watch trailer

Hero of the Underworld (2016) Directed by John Vincent

"Hero of the Underworld", so what is this movie? A superhero movie? An action flick? No, it's a meandering drama about a terribly uninteresting character and a whole bunch of drama that never works out as anything convincing, let alone engaging.

I actually got a "The Room" kind of vibe from this movie at times, which of course isn't a very positive thing to say. It's an obviously cheap film, made by a bunch of mostly inexperienced persons, both in front of- and behind the cameras. Yes, it's a very amateurish looking- and feeling movie at times. Nothing wrong with cheap film-making but you need to have something in the movie to compensate for this, or do anything to make use of its own limitations for instance, in a clever and creative way. In this case the movie does absolutely nothing. It doesn't have a very appealing style and atmosphere and it doesn't feature the right type of story to make up for its weaknesses either.

As a matter of fact, the story is actually still the main thing that makes this such an incredibly pointless and terribly unappealing movie to watch. It's really mostly a movie about nothing. It's unclear what this movie is really trying to say with its main story, or if it's even trying to say anything at all. I actually genuinely do think that the movie and the movie makers themselves truly believed that they were making a thought-provoking and deep drama, about many serious issues, such as death and drug abuse. The movie however has no idea how to handle any of these times ever in an engaging or even remotely interesting and credibly kind of way.

Things are made all the more annoying and worse by the fact that the movie is a needlessly slow one. Scenes just go on and on and the movie as a whole feels far too stretched out. It besides doesn't ever appears that the movie is heading anywhere interesting with any of its themes and story lines, so finishing this movie is more of a task and an endurance than anything else really.

There is just something terribly unconvincing about the whole premise and main story of the movie. It's not just the writing, it's everything really. The casting, the acting itself, the directing, none of it ever seems to come together. The main character- and therefore the movie as a whole, falls incredibly flat because of that. His motivations, his actions, it never comes across as anything too convincing and despite the fact that the movie spends a lot of time with just its one main character, played by Tom Malloy, you still never really seem to get to know him, or ever remotely start to care about anything that happens to him.

Chances are that you are not even ever going to come across this movie. Be thankful for that.


Watch trailer

Ice Sharks (2016) (TV) Directed by Emile Edwin Smith

Will shark movies ever stop being popular? Probably not and we mostly have The Asylum/SyFy channel to blame for this. This movie is yet another silly (or rather said, just plain stupid) shark movie, containing some abysmal effects and terrible writing.

No, it brings nothing new to the table. It's basically following the familiar and very standard formula of having a bunch of people getting terrorized by some terribly fake looking sharks. Seriously, can't they put a tiny bit more effort into creating the effects? 2017 is right around the corner, there is absolutely no excuse for any movie nowadays to have such bad effects such as this movie has in it.

It's still kind of funny to see how this movie slowly starts to turn into a "Deep Blue Sea" ripoff, as it progresses. Funny, since "Deep Blue Sea" isn't exactly the most well liked or respected movies, involving sharks, that's around. It should also tell you something about the originality of the movie. Sure, it's still pretty creative with some of its shark attacks and story elements but never in a mind-blowing or otherwise very effective kind of way. It's a ridicules movies and it obviously knows this but yet it never manages to make it work in its advantage. It's never fun enough, never thrilling and never very surprising either.

The movie is about as nonsensical as you would expect. I mean, "Ice Sharks come on! What more do you need to know? They don't really ever take the trouble to explain things or make things remotely credible to watch, which should have been fine, if only the movie would have known how to be fun. It now instead mostly is nothing more than an offensively bad and silly movie, that doesn't really seem to know what it wants to do and how to achieve anything.

It in all honesty still is far from the worst SyFy channel movie I have ever seen but that's about the most positive thing I can say about it. It's just plain bad and unfortunately never in a very entertaining way neither.


Watch trailer

Isle of the Dead (2016) Directed by Nick Lyon

As far as low-budget zombie-actions movies go...this one really isn't all that great, original or memorable. However, luckily Nick Lyon is a pretty capable director, who despite all limitations often still manages to deliver a pretty decent movie, as is the case for this one as well.

It's kind of a shame to see how a talented young director such as Nick Lyon currently is stuck with directing this type of cheap and simplistic SyFy channel entertainment. He knows how to handle action, pace and some good storytelling, despite the fact that the movie features very little story- and barely any well developed characters in it at all. The movie features about the most basic and simplistic zombie-action story imaginable and it seems that hardly any effort or time got put into coming up with the story and the eventual writing of the screenplay. Yet the movie remains perfectly watchable, for most part. The movie never bores and despite being a very predictable one it still manages to be a pretty entertaining one, which really is all due to the pleasant and professional looking style of the movie and some good action moments.

Obviously I still can't call this movie a great one though, or one that even comes remotely close to it. And this really is all because of the story, It's even kind of annoying how the movie throws you right into the midst of things, without ever setting anything up first. Main effect of this is that you never get to know any of the characters, let alone feel anything for them. Every little dramatic and more serious aspect of the movie also falls flat because of this.

I also really can't call any of the action truly spectacular but thing about it is that it's shot well, so it actually never across like anything cheap or too standard. The movie is also definitely mostly relying purely on its action but in this case that really isn't such a bad thing, since it's about the only thing about the movie that stands out and somewhat decent to watch.

Also really don't watch this movie expecting to get some good zombie horror stuff. It keeps coming up with its own rules, so it's mostly a thing of its own really that isn't relying on all of the genre clichés. This is both a good and bad thing. Good because it's original and refreshing but bad because the stuff that it's offering in regard to its zombie themes really isn't anything all too great or interesting. I for one would have preferred a more horror type of approach to the zombie creatures, instead of trying to turn them into action-superheroes, who's main concern never seems to be the consumption of flesh or nice, fresh, juicy organs.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the acting also really isn't all that great. Granted that this is because of the story and writing of the movie but aside from that, it's simply true that these actors just aren't among the greatest. It's actually luckily that the movie doesn't focus on the characters too much and is more all about bringing some dumb, simple, entertainment to the screen, with its action, settings and main concept.

This movie could have been way worse, which doesn't sound like much of a compliment or a very positive thing to say but in this case it means that the movie does feature some elements in that prevent it from being as bad as the average low-budget genre attempt.


Watch trailer

Love Always, Santa (2016) Directed by Brian Herzlinger

Sure, I often praise the Hallmark Channel Christmas movies but that of course doesn't mean that every movie that airs on it is at good as the other. This one just didn't do for me. It felt a tad bit too serious and was missing that special kind of Christmas feeling in it.

It in essence just is a very basic and simplistic love-story, that lacks charm and overall never comes across as anything convincing. The movie is just too short for the build up and overall love-story to work out and it doesn't help much that it's a very predictable one as well. Absolutely nothing ever comes as a surprise in this movie and you already know how things are going to play out and eventually are going to end up like, 5 minutes into the movie already.

And this really is the biggest problem for the movie. It also does very little with any of its other characters and side-plots to still make things a bit more surprising and fun to watch. I feel that this is the type of movie that could have benefited from following some more characters- and different story lines, that all were somehow connected and involved romance and/or Christmas story elements. Instead it now remains a very bland and straightforward movie, that ends up being an extremely forgettable one.

The lack of any good Christmas spirit also really was a problem for me. As a matter of fact, I can't even really call this a Christmas movie as well. There are just far too little Christmas connections to the story. It's not a very warm and joyful movie either. I feel that the movie takes itself a tad bit too serious for that and the atmosphere of the movie seems a bit too dark, instead of either cheerful or winterly-like, which are both always far more suiting for a Christmas movie.

In some ways it's still a very fluffy movie but unfortunately never in the movie its advantage. The story and characters all feel a bit too exaggerated in parts. This obviously is something that makes the movie far from convincing but it also never adds enough to the fun or warmth of the movie unfortunately, mostly because it seems too forced.

It doesn't feel like a total waste of time though. It's in no way a terrible movie and its still innocent and decent enough to have a good time with it, if you're in the mood for something light. Just don't expect a warming and highly fun Christmas movie experience.


Planet of the Sharks (2016) Directed by Mark Atkins

Ah yes, I remember the days when every shark- and other killer animal movie, were trying to be like "Jaws". A time that actually really wasn't that bad, when compared to shark movies nowadays. Nowadays the movies revel in their silliness and are more concerned about becoming the next "Sharknado", rather than actually trying to be a remotely decent movie. Or in this case the movie isn't only trying to be the next "Sharknado, it also features tons of elements from "Waterworld", which seems like an even more odd approach and choice.

Well, it's a movie from The Asylum for the SyFy channel, so you sort of should already know what to expect from it; not much good but plenty of entertainment and silliness. Guess that the movie in some regards delivers in that way but at the same time there is absolutely no way that I can call this movie a remotely decent or recommendable one.

The story is a real issue. I just really don't know what's even going on this movie. Something to do with activating a machine to wipe out the sharks, that for some reason have taken over the oceans. So yes, it seems that I actually got the story but it's so messy and nonsensical that it constantly gave me the feeling I wish missing something about it. No way the story could be this simplistic and nonsensical, right? Well, in this case it really is though. I wasn't missing anything, the story was just that simplistic and terrible to have to follow. Things never get explained properly and the movie seems very random with all of its events and developments. It never manages to create a good 'world', with its own rules and logic. It's somewhat of a post- apocalyptic movie, that however feels and looks like its taking place in the normal, everyday world, in which there is no shortage of anything. Characters look clean and well fed, as do the boats they sail on. Yes, as a matter of fact I really have to admit that "Waterworld" is a far superior movie, that also does a far better job handling its post-apocalyptic elements and yes, it even is a far more eventful movie as well.

There of course still is lots of action in this movie but it's too much of the same. There's only so much you can do with giant killer sharks, I guess. Besides, all of the computer effects are absolutely horrendous, so none of the shark action ever feels like anything realistic or remotely exciting.

The human characters barely have more personality and depth than the sharks in this movie though. It's annoying how you never really get to know any of the characters and how none of them are likable and charismatic enough to carry the movie.

It's not even good in a silly and entertaining kind of way. It's just a messy and poorly done movie, that never manages to be a watchable enough one.


Watch trailer

Every Christmas Has a Story (2016) (TV) Directed by Ron Oliver

There is no way that under any other circumstances I would ever decide to watch a Hallmark Channel Christmas movie but to be frank, most of these movies really aren't as bad or predictable as most people would expect. I won't say that they're good but they often really serve their purpose and bring some good, warm, entertainment to the screen.

And yes, this movie really is no different. It's very simple, it's very basic but it works, so I'm really not complaining that much about it. Despite of all of its clichés and other weaknesses it still manages to provide plenty of originality and entertainment, without never loosing its Christmas spirit either.

It's a typical story of a person finding the meaning and joy of Christmas but in the process there is plenty of other stuff happening as well. Good news about it also is that it never turns into a fluffy, happy and forced type of Christmas movie, that's putting things on too thick. The characters feel like genuine humans, the drama feels like genuine drama and the comedy of the movie never becomes anything too over-the-top and goofy.

The main plot line in essence basically still is a very predictable one but the movie does a good job throwing in some story lines to distract from this and make things a bit more surprising and original to watch at times. There's a certain mystery element to it and the movie takes its time to set things up and tell its story, without ever making it too obvious what's going to happen next.

Not everything in the story works out though. Some things that happen in it are just a bit too convenient or random but once you decide to simple 'just roll' with it, it doesn't become much of an issue. After all, this is a movie to put you in the Christmas spirit, not one to blow you away with its story and clever plot twists.

The atmosphere of the movie is pretty decent. At least it feels cold and winterly, unlike most other modern, cheap, made for TV, genre movies, that look like they got shot in the middle of summer. It generally speaking isn't a cheap looking or feeling movie. It helps that the movie got shot on location and doesn't feature too many interior sequences.

Worth checking out but definitely no big deal if you miss it.


Watch trailer

Arlo: The Burping Pig (2016) Directed by Tom DeNucci

Yes, let's please combine the two least creative and most annoying things about modern kids movies; talking animals and a bunch of fart/burp jokes!

And here I was hoping for the next "Babe". But all kidding aside, it in my book is an absolute fact that at least 90% of all talking animals movies are absolute garbage. They are cheap, predictable and about as unimaginative and uncreative as a kids movie could get, despite always obviously featuring a fantasy-like concept. Sure, there are exceptions but no, this movie isn't one of them.

As a matter of fact, I do see this movie as way worse than just the average genre attempt. It's way more lazy than most other genre movies, despite still featuring all of the same familiar ingredients, and relying on all of the same clichés and predictable story-developments. Problem with this movie is that it's handling all of these elements way worse than most other movies do.

It's not a very story driven movie. There is not much of a conflict, or any other story-line that ever develops into anything remotely engaging and original. As a matter of fact, there isn't much happening in this movie at all. Scenes drag on and the pacing in general is absolutely horrible. It's true that part of it seems to be because the movie is an very predictable one, literally from start to finish. You always know what's going to come next and the movie does absolutely nothing different or remotely original to ever surprise you with anything.

Come to think of it; there's even no point to having a talking pig in this movie. Only the audience can hear him and he does absolutely nothing in this movie, aside from burping and eating. I can't really say that the movie revolves around him and he adds very little to the story. As far as cutesy kids movies go this one just isn't ever being cute, warm, funny or entertaining enough.

The human characters aren't much better though. They are all big walking stereotypes and none of them seems capable of handling either the comedy or more dramatic and serious elements of the movie. Beside from the acting, it otherwise isn't a very well cast movie. None of the family members look anything remotely alike and it's annoying to see two of the young teenage daughters getting played by actresses who look well in their 20's. I get it that young kids are never the best actors and they can't work an awful lot of hours on a movie, so sometimes movies cast older actors to play teens but that doesn't mean that the movie should be allowed to get away with everything. Besides, the main part of the movie still gets played by a young kid who's about 7-years old apparently.

It's a movie that comes across like it got written in a day, and shot within a week. Even the most basis things seem cheap, lazy and simple. My guess is that some 4-year old's could still enjoy it but that really doesn't make this a remotely good movie.


Watch trailer

Killing Reagan (2016) (TV) Directed by Rod Lurie

This movie is a very welcome one about a piece of history that not a whole lot of people are familiar. Well, at least not into great detail, not in the least because some things were kept under the wraps, for the longest time. It's a pretty insightful movie, that never gets too heavy with anything, which at the same time is both positive and negative thing.

It's not really a movie in the classic sense. It's what, I always like to call, a telling of events. Almost more like a documentary, that gives you the facts, in a very straightforward and almost cold kind of fashion, without ever featuring much of a buildup or some true tension and drama. I see this both as a good and bad thing about this movie. It's good as a movie to learn from but quite weak as one to get truly taken in with. I however do feel that this is a sort of OK for this particular movie. After all, it's one that's made for the National Geographic Channel, so it has to be educative and it's about events that we already all know the outcome of, so what's the point of trying to create any tension and drama in the progress of telling its story? That's simply not the point. It's not a biopic or a big drama that's aiming for any Oscars. It's a movie that's there to educate you about a certain event(s) in history.

And I'll be honest, I rather watch a movie like this than a documentary about the very same subject. It's not that I hate watching documentaries but the idea of having to set through something that's narrated, filled with archive footage and a bunch of interviews with people is something that I can't get myself to watch and a reason why I really don't ever watch that many documentary movies to begin with. So for me personally these type of movies are perfect and I could imaging that it's perfect for big groups of other people as well, such as for instance students. I would rather want to learn from a movie like this than a text book or an 2 hour long documentary, if I still were a student.

Its style also ensures that it's not always the best movie to watch though. Like I said, it feels a bit like a cold and distant movie, which is not the most pleasant thing to have to sit through but also the directing itself feels too lacking at parts. I can't really put my finger on it. The movie feels too fast but at the same time also too slow. Perhaps it's because the movie its story isn't giving you much information, besides from the absolute necessities. The fast pace tells you that the movie is giving you a lot of information but the slow progress of the story actually provides you the opposite. It feels conflicting to watch but this is the case with basically every made for TV movie, that doesn't have to budget or other capabilities to do a whole lot more than just telling you a 'simple' story.

Thing that still really puts this movie above the average TV movie is the acting. Not only do the actors look pretty darn close to the people they are portraying, they also play their roles very well and convincingly. Tim Matheson and Cynthia Nixon truly carry- and make this movie, as Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

It was still odd though how this movie almost idolized its main protagonist. Ronald Reagan wasn't only portrayed as an ultimate good guy but even as almost an hero as well. It felt forced and besides unrealistic but I guess that's just how Americans look up to their presidents and how they want to see them portrayed as.

Not so great as a movie but pretty good as an interesting and insightful telling of events about a part of American history.


Watch trailer