Unity and hope. These are the two words that have stuck with me since I watched“Reagan”.

For those of you who don’t know, the recent “Reagan” movie tells the story of Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States. As a movie producer myself, I was impressed by how incredibly well the film was crafted.

The most compelling feature of the movie was the story itself. “Reagan” focused on an essential and often overlooked component of President Reagan’s life: his deeply rooted Christian faith.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

It all started when young Reagan’s mother gave him a book called “That Printer of Udell’s.”  This book was the first time that Reagan learned the connection between faith and politics, and, in many ways, it became a map of his life and career.

I’m well aware that Ronald Reagan isn’t without his critics. But I don’t think people today realize just how popular he was. Today, elections are decided by a few key “battleground” states because it’s almost guaranteed how most states in our nation will vote.

Reagan didn’t face that issue. He was elected twice, in 1980 and 1984. In 1980, Reagan won 46 states, and in 1984, he only failed to win one.

That’s staggering.

Even though he was a Republican, Ronald Reagan won the vast majority of Democratic votes. The “Reagan” movie does an excellent job telling the story of why.

Ronald Reagan had a rare and remarkable combination of character and charisma. His Christian faith shaped his character. He stood for honesty, life, and integrity. Yet, he wasn’t mindlessly belligerent or antagonistic.

He was clear on what he believed, why he believed it, and was always ready to give thoughtful, reasoned answers. This earned him respect from everyone, even those who disagreed with his policies or beliefs.

President Reagan also always remembered his roots. He was raised in the small town of Dixon, Ill., and embodied small-town values and a kind, down-to-earth personality. Despite the intense pressures of politics and life on Capitol Hill, he never compromised on who he was.

That’s why this movie filled me with hope.

In a world that’s rife with political division, “Reagan” shows that unity is possible and that we can choose to reject the false dichotomy between conviction and kindness. Both can and should coexist in our political discourse.

There’s one more thing that I think everyone should take away from this important movie: You can be a person of faith and still care deeply about politics.

The world tries to tell us that faith and politics are opposed and that they should not be mixed. However, the life and testimony of Ronald Reagan and so many others tell a different story. They show that Christian values provide a solid foundation for policy, one that endures the test of time and can unify a bifurcated society.

I firmly believe we need more Christians in politics — people who are going to stand up for justice and life when so many others are compromising on crucial issues in the face of political pressure.

There is so much to learn from Ronald Reagan, but one thing stands above the rest: Faith and freedom are worth fighting for, no matter the odds or the opposition. It is time that Christians stop standing by while others lead. We must stand up for what is right and for politics to be a worthy arena.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is a box office dud.

Warner Bros. Pictures’ comic book sequel stumbled to first place at the domestic box office this weekend, grossing a weak $40 million, according to studio estimates.

The highly anticipated film failed to match the success of its Oscar-winning predecessor, which opened to $96.2 million in 2019 and broke the October box office record in the United States and Canada.

The second installment in director Todd Phillips’ “Joker” saga — starring Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga — fell far short of analyst projections, which estimated that the comic-book adaptation would launch somewhere between $50 million and $65 million domestically.

The new “Joker” also cost significantly more than its predecessor, carrying a reported budget of at least $190 million before marketing. The original cost $55 million to make.

The movie was expected to fall short of the original’s impressive debut after generating only $7 million in Thursday previews. For comparison, “Joker” amassed $13.3 million in Thursday previews.

Internationally, “Joker: Folie à Deux” earned $81.1 million for a worldwide debut gross of $121.1 million.

Rounding out the top three at the domestic box office this weekend were Universal Pictures’ “The Wild Robot,” which collected $18.7 million in its sophomore weekend for a total of $64 million so far; and Warner Bros.’ “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” which added $10.3 million in its fifth outing for a cumulative of $265.5 million.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” stars Phoenix as titular antihero Arthur Fleck and Gaga as his cackling love interest and partner-in-crime Harleen Francis Quinzel (better known as Harley Quinn). The main ensemble also features Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener and returning cast member Zazie Beetz.

Unlike the first film — which garnered critical acclaim and 11 Oscar nominations — “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been plagued by negative reviews. The follow-up received a dreadful 34% rating on review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes and a dismal “D” grade from audiences polled by CinemaScore.

“Folie à Deux” also deviates from “Joker” in another significant way: It’s a musical. Or, as Phillips has tactfully described it, “a movie where music is an essential element.”

“There are 11 songs on the soundtrack album and more than that in the movie, presented in full or in pieces. The numbers sometimes serve a narrative purpose, other times not so much,” writes Michael Ordoña for the L.A. Times.

“The performers are game, but these musical breaks try our patience. They often interrupt the momentum, and there’s not much of that to begin with, with no attempt to create suspense regarding the verdict or any grand plan Arthur [Phoenix] or Lee [Gaga] might hatch. That lack of mirthful masterminding reminds us, painfully, that this isn’t anything close to ‘Joker.’ ”

Opening in theaters next weekend are Cineverse Corp.’s “Terrifier 3,” Sony Pictures’ expansion of “Saturday Night,” Focus Features’ “Piece by Piece,” A24’s “We Live in Time” and Toho International’s “My Hero Academia: You’re Next.”

When you watch a David Cronenberg film, you pretty much have to expect something done in a unique register. Whether it’s his various body horror works or when he tackles other genres, it’s handled in a manner unlike most other storytellers. So, when it comes to The Shrouds, of course a Cronenberg movie about grief would be different than any other put on celluloid. Playing at the New York Film Festival, it’s a flick that has much to ponder, though how much of it translates to the audience will depend on the viewer.

The Shrouds is a movie with a lot on its mind, even if surprisingly little happens over the course of its two hour runtime. It’s meant to evoke feelings, while also being fairly clinical for a story about grief. As befits Cronenberg, conspiracy and technology also loom large, as does some kink, so there’s genre work at play, even if this isn’t another effort in the horror genre for the filmmaker.

In the near future, Karsh (Vincent Cassel) is a successful businessman who has developed a type of software within a special “shroud” that, paired with his graves, allows the grieving to check in on their passed loved ones, observing the gradual decay while buried. Known as GraveTech, it’s clearly not for everyone, but it means a lot to him, especially as he’s mourning the loss of his wife Becca (Diane Kruger). Karsh tries to date, but he mostly talks about her and the technology, so he’s not exactly a hoot. Most of his time is spent either with his former sister in law Terry (Kruger as well), her ex-husband Maury (Guy Pearce) who handles his computer operations, or his AI assistant Hunny.

When some of the graves are vandalized, Karsh begins to investigate. What starts out as a personal mission quickly becomes something else, as a potential conspiracy unravels. At the same time, he begins a sexual relationship with Terry, one that Maury has been fretting over the possibility of for some time. As the crisis deepens, Karsh starts wondering if he’s losing it, if something nefarious is afoot, or if both are possibilities.

Making star Vincent Cassel up to look like Cronenberg himself is certainly a choice, but there’s still a fine performance here to consider. Cassel has to depict grief in a very distinct manner while still getting everything across to the audience, which he largely succeeds at. As filmmaker surrogates go, it works. Diane Kruger has multiple roles to play, but it’s largely Terry that we see her in action, and it’s a strong performance. She’s really leaning into some of the kink elements that the filmmaker loves, too, which is a fun little bonus. For a therapy style work, Cronenberg still can’t help himself. Guy Pearce is a bit more mannered here than I’d like, but it’s still another interesting performance from someone incapable of not grabbing your attention. The supporting cast includes Jennifer Dale, Sandrine Holt, Elizabeth Saunders, Steve Switzman, Jeff Yung, and more.

Writer/director David Cronenberg is working in a different register here, obviously given the loss of his own wife. The Shrouds starts out largely mellow, only going up in escalation in the back end. Now, the third act does kind of fall apart, but it’s not a death blow for the film. Instead, it just showcases some of the limits of the story Cronenberg is penning. That being said, the moments of humor are well placed, so there’s a break in the dour nature at times. His direction is as solid as ever, even showcasing periodic restraint. It’s perhaps middle of the road for his career, but that still isn’t half bad.

The Shrouds works best as a Cronenberg curiosity, given the newfound subject matter and his personal connection. If you’re a fan of his, especially if you’re invested in him as a person, there’s plenty to chew on. As a full on film, it’s more hit or miss, but there’s enough here to warrant a recommendation. This is unlikely to be a movie that highlights NYFF this year, but it’s certainly going to stand out, at least a bit.

SCORE: ★★★

Related