21 reviews
I saw "Lucy" last night and found it to be a pretty good general overview of the star's rise. It seemed to dwell a bit too much on her relationship with Desi(which never really changed) instead of the other things going on in her life as she became more and more famous.
The acting was very good. I remember Rachel York from Les Mis back in 1991. She has a great deal of talent. Danny Pino, I don't remember seeing in anything before.
All in all - worth seeing.
The acting was very good. I remember Rachel York from Les Mis back in 1991. She has a great deal of talent. Danny Pino, I don't remember seeing in anything before.
All in all - worth seeing.
Lucille Ball was a great comedian, but her life really does not lend itself to a 3 hour dramatic interpretation like this. There just isn't much that dramatic that happened.
This biopic covers a lot of familiar territory, while adding nothing really new and interesting. There have been a number of documentaries on Lucy covering all this material, and watching the real people and archival footage is a lot more interesting than this play acting. It came across as a rote dramatization of events rather than an involving drama.
The script is not at all good, and the "recreations" served only to illustrate why the real Lucy et al. were comic geniuses and these actors are not.
Rachel York as Lucy fails to capture Lucy's essence. She definitely does not have her edge, especially as an older woman. As Ball approached middle age she came across as very tough and coarse, with a very raspy voice. (Though in fairness, I would think playing someone like Lucille Ball convincingly would be near impossible). Fred and Ethel are pathetic. And Bette Davis??!!
Danny Pinto as Desi fares the best. He really got the accent down, and had some of Desi's swagger if not his hard edge as well. Needless to say, Desi was no where near as thin, handsome (and young) as Pinto. Not that was really a problem - staring at him was the main reason to watch this!
Anyone expcecing something along the lines of the Judy Garland bio of a few years back will be sorely disappointed. Not even close.
This biopic covers a lot of familiar territory, while adding nothing really new and interesting. There have been a number of documentaries on Lucy covering all this material, and watching the real people and archival footage is a lot more interesting than this play acting. It came across as a rote dramatization of events rather than an involving drama.
The script is not at all good, and the "recreations" served only to illustrate why the real Lucy et al. were comic geniuses and these actors are not.
Rachel York as Lucy fails to capture Lucy's essence. She definitely does not have her edge, especially as an older woman. As Ball approached middle age she came across as very tough and coarse, with a very raspy voice. (Though in fairness, I would think playing someone like Lucille Ball convincingly would be near impossible). Fred and Ethel are pathetic. And Bette Davis??!!
Danny Pinto as Desi fares the best. He really got the accent down, and had some of Desi's swagger if not his hard edge as well. Needless to say, Desi was no where near as thin, handsome (and young) as Pinto. Not that was really a problem - staring at him was the main reason to watch this!
Anyone expcecing something along the lines of the Judy Garland bio of a few years back will be sorely disappointed. Not even close.
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, Buster
Keaton's involvement with Lucy's life and Lucy's close personal relationships with her family.
Four Star entertainment!!
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, Buster
Keaton's involvement with Lucy's life and Lucy's close personal relationships with her family.
Four Star entertainment!!
- ApolloBoy109
- May 4, 2003
- Permalink
They're screening this now on Get TV, but I fear they will need to change the name of the network to Get Lost TV.
I don't even begin to understand, when the REAL history is so fascinating, so well documented and thus so easily obtainable, and so much better than this drivel, that they would chose to make this mess. Was this some high school film student's project? I'm not the world's biggest film enthusiast, but I must have half dozen books on this subject and truth is so much better than this badly acted, well, er, mess. They're making Lucille look like some idiot who just bounced into one unbelievable bit of good luck after another, when in fact the woman was a talented actor and a business genius. She got Buster Keaton himself to teach her how to use props! They didn't even get the meeting with Desi Arnaz correct, and that's Hollywood lore.
I doubt you'll ever be faced with this decision, but should you find the opportunity to look at this, just don't. So disrespectful.
I don't even begin to understand, when the REAL history is so fascinating, so well documented and thus so easily obtainable, and so much better than this drivel, that they would chose to make this mess. Was this some high school film student's project? I'm not the world's biggest film enthusiast, but I must have half dozen books on this subject and truth is so much better than this badly acted, well, er, mess. They're making Lucille look like some idiot who just bounced into one unbelievable bit of good luck after another, when in fact the woman was a talented actor and a business genius. She got Buster Keaton himself to teach her how to use props! They didn't even get the meeting with Desi Arnaz correct, and that's Hollywood lore.
I doubt you'll ever be faced with this decision, but should you find the opportunity to look at this, just don't. So disrespectful.
- CarmellaSoprano
- Oct 3, 2015
- Permalink
I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!
I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.
I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.
I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.
I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.
I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.
I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.
- lovesclassics
- May 23, 2003
- Permalink
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.
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.
Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.
- americanjules04
- May 3, 2003
- Permalink
I thought that the actors did a good job portraying such well-known and loved people. Sure, nobody could ever do it perfectly, but they did their best. Other people have mentioned that the Vitameatavegamin and Candy Factory scenes were done wrong. If they knew how the real episodes went and then saw those scenes and where they were or how they were dressed, a viewer would realize that those scenes were done as rehearsals. Lucy in her dressing room with a bottle of Coke practicing with a mirror, and Lucy and Vivian experiencing the conveyor belt for the first time at practice. Some people just don't pay attention. Like I said, I enjoyed this movie but would rather read Lucy's autobiography, "Love Lucy."
I have no idea how historically accurate the story is. But to my own surprise, I found myself crying through most of this movie. Gradually--very gradually--the (I must say amazing) actress Rachel York uncannily takes on the appearance and personae of the Lucille Ball we all knew from the wildly popular sitcom people my age grew up with many years ago. Though we read stories of the tensions between Ball and her husband/TV co-star, Desi Arnez, none of it seemed very real. This drama drives it home. It is a true tragi-comedy. Neither of these two enormously talented personalities come across as villains.It is, in the end, simply a tragic clash of cultures.
All performers in this production are top notch.
All performers in this production are top notch.
- dbuckshnis
- Jan 19, 2022
- Permalink
I've seen this movie only a couple of times, but it leaves its mark in your memory.
I am so hoping it is released on DVD or BluRay someday because I am craving a viewing of it, again. Rachel York and Danny Pino are perfection in this tightly written bio-pic. Directed with heart and empathy.
- logoonefan
- Jan 12, 2021
- Permalink
- vchimpanzee
- May 4, 2003
- Permalink
Just watched this movie on TV - tripped over it and likely wouldn't have watched it any other time because I'd have been expecting it to be as bad as all the OTHER Lucy movies. Boy, was I surprised! I thought it was excellent and Rachel York was excellent IN it. Her voice sounded almost exactly like Lucy. She was a little "prettier" but once her hair was red, she was a GREAT Lucy. I loved the way she did Lucy's most famous scenes and stunts. They didn't look any different than when Lucy did them from the first one on stage to the famous wine vat. She had all the right movements and I thought she was just perfect.
I LIKED that they didn't spend a lot of time on Fred and Ethel; they showed that they were cast and she and Ethel had their scenes together, but it was all about Lucy, as it should have been.
Danny Pino was a great Desi. I'm really used to seeing him on SVU so it was a little hard to disconnect them, but he did all his iconic scenes very well and if he did his own singing, he was great.
I recommend this movie. I was not familiar with Rachel York; clearly this must have been toward the beginning of her career and now she's a Broadway star, but I can't say enough what a great Lucy she played. To be able to get Lucy's nuances and quirks so well, she was top notch.
I'm pulling my review out for editing because after reading OTHER reviews, I realize that it was a 3 hour movie but what I saw was cut into a two-hour movie. I didn't see any of her early years (that was my fault; I started 20 minutes late; my first view was when she drove into the driveway in California with her family. I couldn't understand why Buster Keaton was introduced and I clearly saw nothing of the RED scandal. The movie seemed complete as far as I saw it, but I realize now I sure would have liked to have seen the whole three hours.
I LIKED that they didn't spend a lot of time on Fred and Ethel; they showed that they were cast and she and Ethel had their scenes together, but it was all about Lucy, as it should have been.
Danny Pino was a great Desi. I'm really used to seeing him on SVU so it was a little hard to disconnect them, but he did all his iconic scenes very well and if he did his own singing, he was great.
I recommend this movie. I was not familiar with Rachel York; clearly this must have been toward the beginning of her career and now she's a Broadway star, but I can't say enough what a great Lucy she played. To be able to get Lucy's nuances and quirks so well, she was top notch.
I'm pulling my review out for editing because after reading OTHER reviews, I realize that it was a 3 hour movie but what I saw was cut into a two-hour movie. I didn't see any of her early years (that was my fault; I started 20 minutes late; my first view was when she drove into the driveway in California with her family. I couldn't understand why Buster Keaton was introduced and I clearly saw nothing of the RED scandal. The movie seemed complete as far as I saw it, but I realize now I sure would have liked to have seen the whole three hours.
- amorellehill
- Oct 24, 2015
- Permalink
"Lucy" the movie, failed to live up to the promise of it's commercials, which featured recreated scenes from the famous "I Love Lucy" series.
The over long film juggled facts and dates to the point that any real Lucy fan watching couldn't help but spend the entire 3 hours raging about all that they got wrong or changed.
So Buster Keaton readied the couple for their vaudeville act? Funny, Desi's friend Pepito the clown has always been credited in every biography of the couple I've ever read. They've got Lucy as a blonde years after she went red - where was the movie "Too many Girls" for which MGM imported Desi from NY, and during the making of which the couple began dating?
Yeah, I'm nit-picking, but the film was so filled with little blunders like that! The kind of things that drive any hard core Lucy fan crazy!
I could've over looked much of this had the producers provided me with a more believable Lucy - but Miss York frankly did not cut it. Lucy was as famous for her beauty as for her talent, and Miss York is simply not even in her league.
With a running time of 3 hours, they had time to get it right - that they chose not to do so amazes me! All in all, a really tedious waste of viewing time. If you love Lucy - Avoid it!
The over long film juggled facts and dates to the point that any real Lucy fan watching couldn't help but spend the entire 3 hours raging about all that they got wrong or changed.
So Buster Keaton readied the couple for their vaudeville act? Funny, Desi's friend Pepito the clown has always been credited in every biography of the couple I've ever read. They've got Lucy as a blonde years after she went red - where was the movie "Too many Girls" for which MGM imported Desi from NY, and during the making of which the couple began dating?
Yeah, I'm nit-picking, but the film was so filled with little blunders like that! The kind of things that drive any hard core Lucy fan crazy!
I could've over looked much of this had the producers provided me with a more believable Lucy - but Miss York frankly did not cut it. Lucy was as famous for her beauty as for her talent, and Miss York is simply not even in her league.
With a running time of 3 hours, they had time to get it right - that they chose not to do so amazes me! All in all, a really tedious waste of viewing time. If you love Lucy - Avoid it!
- IStillAmBig
- May 5, 2003
- Permalink
It was on tv last night..kinda surprised no one has commented on it yet. I actually missed the first 20 minutes or so of this because the alarm didn't wake me like it should have, but the rest of the film was very gripping. I never realized how much drama there was in Lucille's life..it's quite sad to think about. She was very happy on-stage, clearly.
The looks of the actors, Rachel and Daniel, were very off from the real Lucy and Desi (sometimes they actually find people who look like the people) which kinda threw me and made it hard for me to like see everything happening to the real Lucy. However their voices and accents were really good, so that helped. I noticed they kinda changed around a few things whenever they were recalling an episode...like the chocolate factory one...it was the bossy lady who called the machines to go faster..not Lucy..oh well. It's also sad that it ended so early in the story of their lives, but I suppose it was just to portray the story of "Lucy". It was still excellent and stuck in my mind.
The looks of the actors, Rachel and Daniel, were very off from the real Lucy and Desi (sometimes they actually find people who look like the people) which kinda threw me and made it hard for me to like see everything happening to the real Lucy. However their voices and accents were really good, so that helped. I noticed they kinda changed around a few things whenever they were recalling an episode...like the chocolate factory one...it was the bossy lady who called the machines to go faster..not Lucy..oh well. It's also sad that it ended so early in the story of their lives, but I suppose it was just to portray the story of "Lucy". It was still excellent and stuck in my mind.
- KKaliforniApril22
- May 4, 2003
- Permalink
I've read a lot of negative reviews of this film and I can only say that yes, there are some errors in the chronology and anachronisms regarding the cars used. If you can get beyond all that, the film will entertain you. The acting and the portrayals are quite good of Lucy and Desi, and acceptable for Viv and Bill Frawley. There are some not-bad impersonations of some legends like Eddie Cantor and young Bette Davis. A standout is the young woman portraying Carole Lombard, and the 20s period stuff looks good. I wish they would have gone more into Desi's background as his early life was filled with at least as much drama as Lucy's. The woman who plays DeDe Ball really looks exactly like the real thing. The re-creations of Lucy's best routines are pretty good. It must be hard to near-impossible to try an imitate a comic genius credibly, but Rachel York does a very good job. I've read nearly everything ever written about Lucy and Desi, and while this film is not perfect, it is generally pretty accurate.
- earlytalkie
- May 24, 2012
- Permalink
This film failed before we evan saw who directed it. Even the casting chosen for this movie didn't do well. It's a shame that this movie is nothing more then Lucy's marriage problems with just a touch of her show. If you want to see the true Lucy go to A&E and see it there. You will get a better idea of this great lady.
This is clearly a made-for-television movie. The plot line follows the rhythm that allows for commercial advertising breaks. Nonetheless, the form suits the content: how the real-life coupling of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz led to the birth of a new comedic genre - the sitcom.
Ball's goofy and good-natured ability to recount funny stories foreshadowed the eventual development of her unique physical humour. Rachel York uses her considerable talents effectively in her inspired performance as this very contemporary clown. Did Lucille Ball really receive coaching from Buster Keaton and Red Skelton or is this merely a fictional embellishment, creating a bridge between her mostly unknown film roles and her emergence as a television star?
"Lucy" wisely does not recreate many scenes from the original "I Love Lucy" shows, with the stunning exception of the grape-stomping scene. Though the intervening years have provided TV and movie audiences with new comedians, the verve and the brilliance of Lucille Ball, as played in that particular scene, is well worth revisiting.
Ball's goofy and good-natured ability to recount funny stories foreshadowed the eventual development of her unique physical humour. Rachel York uses her considerable talents effectively in her inspired performance as this very contemporary clown. Did Lucille Ball really receive coaching from Buster Keaton and Red Skelton or is this merely a fictional embellishment, creating a bridge between her mostly unknown film roles and her emergence as a television star?
"Lucy" wisely does not recreate many scenes from the original "I Love Lucy" shows, with the stunning exception of the grape-stomping scene. Though the intervening years have provided TV and movie audiences with new comedians, the verve and the brilliance of Lucille Ball, as played in that particular scene, is well worth revisiting.