[Timesink]

Why am I not surprised by the tone or conclusions of this review?

[Timesink]

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

---

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Bonaparte]

The NYT would do well to replace this "reviewer" with Jayson Blair. He's more honest.

[samtheman]

shot mostly in darkly lit interiors and small, enclosed spaces like hospital rooms, elevators and the presidential bedroom

Saving money on the sets?

Cheap is as cheap does.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...the only Red menace is Nancy Reagan's wardrobe...

Haw haw.

Hey, Ms. Dowd Lite, we've read Ann Coulter's book. We know how your paper worked 24/7 covering for Soviet spies, back then.

[martin_fierro]

TimesWatch has an interesting "Topic Index" on Stanley.

[anniegetyourgun]

I can see why the NYT would consider it "harmless." However, their protestations belie that position.

[xzins]

Let the revisionism begin.

[Helms]

I am canceling my HBO-Showtime service today. Both of these are turning into cultural sub-pumps of liberal sewage. No Sopranos, just allot of too cool for school programs. Six Feet Under.

[montag813]

I saw an advance screening of this film. The economic boom is not touched upon at all. The state of the nation after the brutal Carter policies is not mentioned. Reagan is not given credit for any good decision he ever made. The producers credit Nancy, Mike Deaver, and others instead. Reagan is seen as a dumb, lazy, ignorant pawn of history, instead of his true role as epochal man of change. It is not anger-provoking, merely boring. I watched it with a liberal and even she said it was silly and dull, and an "obvious fiction".

Don't bother watching it. You will only be annoyed at your own waste of time.

[thesummerwind]

Some things never change. I am surprised the people who created this movie didn't just go over to Reagan's home and injury him physically, such as they have done emotionally with this unhappy, destructive, very inaccurate creation. It is shameful. It is not the inaccuracies that is the worst, it is the intent. Sad for the country.

[Let's Roll]

It's because the NYT etal see nothing wrong with portraying RR as a bumbling wimp and Nancy as a wall to wall bitch - both of which came across on the many excerpts that Drudge broadcast on Rush in October.

[Bubba_Leroy]

The film opens in 1987 with a hurt, bewildered Mr. Reagan discussing the possibility of impeachment over the Iran-Contra affair with his adviser Michael Deaver, as Mrs. Reagan hovers over him.

The film starts with a slanderous lie and goes downhill from there.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

the film denies Mr. Reagan the Mount Rushmore-John Ford grandeur that his image-makers worked so hard to project.

Oppps, Alessandra, you were trying so hard to hide your partisanship but right here you definitely slip up.

His "image-makers"? Sorry lil lady, your horns are showing, if you hear his radio broadcasts and his speeches, you would already understand that Reagan projected his face onto Mt Rushmore with little or no help from anyone.