ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

amorellehill 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.

CarmellaSoprano 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.

bilahn 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.

vchimpanzee The movie starts with the filming of the final episode of 'The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour', a continuation of the very successful 'I Love Lucy' TV series, in 1960. Lucy and Desi are privately calling each other names, some of which we could never have imagined them saying to each other, in an era when such words were not used on TV. In fact, this movie has quite a bit of cursing. Meanwhile, the personas they show to the public appear to tell a different story about the legendary relationship.Then we switch to the 1920s. Young Lucille Ball helps her Uncle George sells hamburgers, and she dates a boy who supposedly smuggles alcohol from Canada. We see the ups and downs of Lucy's early life as she attempts to start an acting career, including an acting class with a young Bette Davis, who already appears to show promise.Forward to 1931. Lucy is good-looking and not afraid to take a pie in the face. These qualities give her enough success in movies that she is able to move her mother, brother and grandfather west to live with her. Then she meets Desi Arnaz and falls in love, knowing that he has many women after him, and that his father thought nothing of being married with a mistress. Despite Desi's reputation, the two end up getting married and moving to a nice ranch, and becoming friends with the likes of Clark Gable and Carole Lombard. Desi's mother does not approve of Lucy, while Desi does not care for being considered 'Mr. Ball', since his wife is more famous than he is. World War II contributes to the strain in the relationship, as Desi serves in the military as a musician working for the campaign for War Bonds. Later, however, when the marriage appears headed for an end, a tragedy brings Lucy and Desi together.Television is the future, and Lucy and Desi take advantage of the chance to further their careers. First, they do a Vaudeville act in front of a live audience, proving that they have what it takes to make people laugh. A radio series follows, and then the TV series that ranks as one of the all-time favorites of many. But despite the faces they show to the world, Lucy and Desi still have their problems.Madeline Zima does a fine job as young Lucy. But Rachel York is absolutely wonderful, showing the spark immediately after taking over the role in 1931. She is beautiful (better-looking than the real Lucy, actually), confident and determined, and she has that wonderful personality. And Daniel Pino captures Desi perfectly. The accent and the voice make it sound as if the real Desi is actually speaking to us. In the Vaudeville routine, they are perfect. I wish I could say the same for York's performances in re-enactments of the TV series. She was good, but no one could play Lucy Ricardo like Lucille Ball. Pino, however, does a fine job as Ricky. Unfortunately, the actress playing Vivian Vance falls flat as Ethel. We never do see the actor who played William Frawley in the role of Fred, and he didn't stand out much as Frawley. I did enjoy the scenes where the producers and writers tried to solve various problems the series was having, even before production began.I enjoyed one scene where Lucy trained in silent-movie acting with Buster Keaton, who was considerably older and fatter than he was when he was popular, though the man playing him made him likeable. Other good acting performances: Lucy's African-American maid, who wanted to be in show business but experienced discrimination; Desi's mother (classy, but not on screen very long); Carole Lombard, one of Lucy's closest friends; and Jess Oppenheimer, one of the driving forces behind the TV series.I was afraid this movie would focus too much on the negative, sordid side of the Lucy-Desi romance. This was true during the third hour, but enough of the positives were shown to provide a balance.This movie was based on fact but certain details were changed. In the famous chocolate factory scene with Lucy and Ethel, Lucy spoke a line delivered by a third actress in reality. After Lucy celebrated her company's purchase of RKO in 1958 (according to an on-screen graphic), filming on 'I Love Lucy' continued, even though that series had ended production in 1957, succeeded by the hour-long show set in Connecticut. Another gaffe: an early 1960s Cadillac was shown in a scene from the early 1950s.The following might be SPOILERS: Some of Pino's best scenes came during the third hour of the movie. In one, Pino tearfully explains to the studio audience for the TV show how Lucy is not a Communist and how much he hates Communism. As good as the performance is, the Communists had yet to take over Cuba, and they were in fact enemies of Batista, the dictator who ran the affluent Arnaz family out of Cuba and took away everything they had. Another wonderful scene had Desi and Lucy explaining to their children what divorce meant. The young actress playing Lucie did a fine job there.I enjoyed this movie, in spite of the negatives in the lives of these two wonderful stars.