Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

dannymike This is a very well-done TV movie. The production values are high, the acting is usually excellent, and the story is factual, for the most part. Honestly, I have seen few movie biographies that were as factual as this. Some details are incorrect and events that did happen are sometimes in the wrong order, but to me these are minor issues. I have seen biopics that captured most of the right details, but they were presented in a way that was not true to the spirit of what happened. While not 100% accurate, the spirit of the real-life personalities and events was usually captured. The most inconsistent thing in the movie is that virtually no one in the movie seems to age significantly, especially Danny Pino as Desi Arnaz. He looks like he ages five years (at the most) from 1940 to 1960. His performance is ten times better than the actor who played him in "Lucy and Desi: Before the Laughter," though. Pino plays Arnaz in a way that is slightly exaggerated and feels like an "impersonation" at times, but it is an effective performance. Rachel York does an excellent job playing Lucille Ball, although she is written to be a little more like "Lucy Ricardo" than the real Lucille Ball ever was. York has a "zany" or "ditsy" quality that Ball never had in real life. I enjoyed how the love and fun of Lucy and Desi's relationship came through as well as the tragedy. This movie had a nice balance of the fun times and the hard times. It also moves along at a quick pace, never really dragging. If you were to watch this movie and "Lucy and Desi: a Home Movie" (the definitive documentary on Lucy and Desi) back to back, you would find that most of the facts about their lives are accurately reproduced in this movie. Some casting could have been better (such as the actress who played Vivian Vance- she did not look, act, or sound at all like Vance) and in some cases the facts could have been better represented, but overall a well-produced, accurate, and entertaining movie.

SnowBrian Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured. There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.

thien314 When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.

ApolloBoy109 This was well put together. 3 hours wasn't enough. Ms. York made me believe and Danny Pino had Desi's turn of phrase perfectly. It covered Lucy's life in surprising detail considering it was too short.Like a trip down memory lane, Lucy and Ricky are a part of our culture then and now. If you allowed the story to take you there, you were in for a rare treat.York and Pino did their jobs perfectly.I was very impressed with the re-creation of many famous scenes, BusterKeaton's involvement with Lucy's life and Lucy's close personal relationships with her family.Four Star entertainment!!