The new biopic Reagan feels a lot like the 1941 classic Sergeant York, which is actually high praise. The surprising biopic of a Christian World War I hero, Sergeant York was nominated for a staggering 11 Oscars and went on to earn Gary Cooper his first “Best Actor” statue. Sergeant York exemplifies the Golden Age of American cinema in that it is an unabashedly uncynical story about one man’s decency, character and faith — and how it led him to change the world.

Reagan, too, is completely uncynical probably because the man it is based on was, too. But it is also about a hero, who overcame personal struggles to play the key role in freeing 50 million people from the chains of European communism.

In another very refreshing throwback to classic Hollywood cinema, Reagan (rated PG-13) thoughtfully takes it time without the furious plot pacing that is the exhausting standard for most movies today. The phrase I first heard in grad school, “Movies move!” has become a curse for filmmakers who are afraid to linger over any key psychological or emotional moments in a story for fear of making the movie boring for 15- to 29-year-old males. Not surprisingly, older theatergoers are thoroughly embracing Reagan and made up 65% of the opening-weekend audience, which shocked the box-office prognosticators by bringing in $10 million in three days, which is twice what had been predicted.

Secular critics are sneering at Reagan for its approbative, and occasionally laudatory, regard for the nation’s 40th president. The movie pulls no punches in that it is presenting Ronald Wilson Reagan as a good man who was motivated principally by his duty to God and his love of country. There is short shrift given to some of his political and personal mistakes, mainly because that just isn’t what the story is about.

After so many years of peeling back dark underbellies in cinematic biopics, Reagan is a bit of a relief. It’s a movie where the audience can just exhale and watch without fear of being horrified or worse, feeling violated. It is a biopic that depicts the hero in his own context and not through the dark, narrow perspective of contemporary cancel culture.

The story is very interesting in that it packs in lots of anecdotes and details that will be new to most people. Most key to the overall success of Reagan is Dennis Quaid’s standout performance. I had the opportunity to give notes on the screenplay years ago, and one of my cautions was that the entire movie would ride on whether an actor could really bring to life Reagan’s essential quality of amiability married to high intelligence. It’s worth seeing the movie just to watch Quaid fully flesh out this key figure of our nation’s, and unquestionably global, history. It probably helped the performance that the star holds Reagan in such high esteem.

When I noted to Quaid that he would be the face and person of Reagan to two generations of young people who weren’t alive in the 1980s, Quaid got very serious. He said, “That is an awesome responsibility. I hope Reagan is pleased by my work.”

The movie does hover dangerously around episodic storytelling by moving through the decades of Reagan’s life, showing him as a child, a young man, a college student and then as a young actor, and finally in the two decades of his political career. But because it all pays off as the one story of how Reagan came to embrace his mission of bringing down European communism, the movie is more engaging and not confusing.

The all-star cast has lots of familiar faces: Lesley-Anne Down as Margaret Thatcher, Jon Voight as a KGB analyst, David Henrie as the young Reagan, Mena Suvari as Jane Wyman, and even a cameo by the America’s Got Talent singing ventriloquist Darcy Lynne. Because the movie is covering so much territory, there are almost too many characters, but seeing all the famous names from Cold War history come to life is one of the most entertaining parts of the film.

The other clear standout in the cast is the wonderful Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy Davis Reagan. It is truly a charming performance that adds hugely to the audience’s enjoyment. She makes Nancy a full human being, not just the woman we knew on the sidelines of history, gazing at Ron with worshipful eyes.

Miller delivers some of the best lines in the movie, including from the scene in which she consents to Reagan’s second presidential run by saying with a full heart, “I’ve always had to share you with the world. That’s what I do.”

Miller told me that she understood from the very beginning of her work on the film that the love story would be the emotional heart of Reagan. She said she spent hours of research, pouring over Nancy’s autobiography because, “Most people don’t really know who Nancy was. But she was strong too, and it was her strength that Reagan drew on to do what he needed to.”

Reagan has that rare gift in a movie, which is a cogent theme. Director Sean McNamara told me in our conversation that the heart of Reagan for him was to communicate the idea that relationships are the biggest driver of human history, and that it is friendship that makes personal and, then, societal growth possible.

The first key relationship that transforms both characters is the love story between Ron and Nancy. Then, by extension, are the relationships between Reagan and Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, Mikhail Gorbachev and Thatcher. The film shows Reagan winning all these people over on a human level, with grace, humor, openness and respectful honesty.

As McNamara noted to me, “It is impossible to work with people whom you publicly demonize.” In that sense, the movie made me wistful for a different time, one that had more grown-up leaders.

The discrepancy between the 91% audience rating for Reagan and the 19% critics’ ratings on RottenTomatoes.com represents one of the largest cinematic chasms in the history of that website. Often, when the critics collectively dismiss a movie for bad craft, it’s worth considering their points. But a 19% rating for Reagan is spectacularly unfair. The acting from Quaid and Miller, for example, would be Oscar-worthy in a less politically polarized moment. The script is thoughtful and complex; the cinematography and production design are very solid. But the critics are not generally saying Reagan’s craft is bad but rather that its patriotic, anti-communist message is bad. It’s just more of the ugly cultural chasm that defines our times.

As Reagan famously chastened a deceitful Jimmy Carter in their 1980 presidential debate, “There you go again.” So, in this case, don’t stay away from Reagan because the secular critics hate it. They were never going to give it a fair shake, and the film is actually a good night at the movies. But it’s also much more.