Lucy (2003)

Waste of time

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

I had not seen this TV movie back when it came out but was on the getTV channel today and our internet was down after the heavy rains over the weekend. So I settled in.This is actually a very well made movie and the main actors are very authentic. I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s and well remembered the TV show "I Love Lucy." This movie puts it all in a perspective we never knew, and shows that Lucille Ball in real life was a lot more ordinary than we would have guessed from her TV persona.Rachel York is Lucille Ball and Danny Pino is Desi Arnaz. It shows how they met and how they decided to get married quickly when Lucy was back in California while Desi was working in New York.While it can be argued that Desi really did love Lucy he was of Cuban stock and he did not see fidelity as a necessary part of his marriage. This was a recurring thorn for Lucy and it plus his drinking and gambling finally resulted in their divorce. However in their heyday they had an extremely successful TV run and their fan base was so loyal some businesses posted signs "We are now closed on Monday evenings, we love Lucy." Plus they formed Desilu Studios which produced a number of other very successful shows. They remained friends after their divorce.

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.

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.

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.