Being the Ricardos

I loved the series and I appreciate the fine work of Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem. The accuracy can be only a detail in this chronicle of the US TV shows history and, I admitt , I do not know very much about the life of the main characters. But I am satisfied by the ball of stories used by director Aaron Sorkin for creating a realistic portrait of a period. This is the basic virtue of this film - to give a large picture of a time , in its precise details and rich significances. The bad detail - the horrible make up of Nicole Kidman , giving impression of plastic face. Like many biopics , a hommage to an epoque. Intense effort, good acting, nice reconstruction of series scenes and a decent manner to reflect the story of a not just ordinary couple.

IMDB where getting over a hundred votes for a movie by big name Hollywood talent gets the review deleted. Am I right, IMDB? Is that how A listers keep you paying to see bombs like this one?

If this movie wins Oscars, it will be the "Shakepeare In Love" of 2022. I know it and the 119 people who upvoted my review (before it disappeared) know it. So why does it keep disappearing, IMDB?

Bad casting is the least of the problems in this Sorkin polemic on the 1950s. But it is the bad casting where I will start.

First, it isn't "ageism" to be so distracted with an actress's bad plastic surgery that a show becomes unpleasantly jarring. Kidman is so frozen that all she can do is stare into the camera when she makes a point. No matter how well Kidman mimics Ball's husky voice, she looks like a doll wearing a mask. It's okay when she's playing Lucille Ball in a serious script read, but it completely falls apart when she plays Lucille Ricardo. Kidman's own features are so robotically flat, that she looks like she's an animated drawing mimicking a human mimicking a the world's most famous comedienne.

To the other miscasting issue, Javier is an older, masculine Spaniard who lacks the litheness and charm of the boyish Desi Arnaz. The scenes of him doing a very bad imitation of Cuban English with Desi as a young man are as jarring to the Spanish ear as the idea of Jackie Gleason suddenly appearing as sexy young Paul Newman in a remake of "HUD." (He can't even sing "BABALU" for Cuban Pete's sake!!!!!)

Third, Sorkin's standard "rata tat tat" dialogue performed by two people who are both uncomfortable with their accents makes the chatter between Lucy and Desi at times unbearable. It's stilted and uncomfortable. It's also full of exposition, which is the hallmark of very lazy writing. These two people were trailblazers, but they were real people. That Sorkin wants to use them as a metaphor might work, if he would stop beating us over the head with what he wants us to know. He should just let the story, which is remarkable, tell itself.

Last, yes. I know Lucie Arnaz did a video defending the casting and Sorkin. And i might take that the endorsement Sorkin's fans want it to be, if she had disclosed in that video that Arnaz and her brother were principal investors in the film. Kidman may have "crawled up in" Lucie's mother's head, but Lucie paid her to be there.

Who wasn't miscast? Nina Arianda shines as Vivian Vance and J. K. Simmons becomes drunk Bill Frawley. Linda Lavin owns the screen as the aged Madelyn Pugh. They make me really want to love this film, but I don't.

Do you love Lucy? Watch the many "Lucy" series and then read the many biographies written about the two actors. You won't have to waste your time with Sorkin's ego trip, and you might learn something.

Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz deserve better than being Aaron Sorkin's object lesson. I wanted a movie about real people, not a sideways lecture from wannabe professor Sorkin.

Nicole Kidman is great BUT her upper face doesn't move and that's very distracting. In close-ups, it's especially jarring. Javier Bardem is wonderful BUT he's 20 years too old for Desi at that time and that's very distracting. ("The Social Network" is a great movie but it wouldn't have worked with Zuckerberg played by a 40 year old.) These two factors kept me at an emotional distance.

Everyone else is very good. The music got on my nerves as it was it was too overly dramatic in places. This wasn't the Titanic going down.

The script is just okay, but it's an interesting story even if timelines are conflated. I sort of feel Sorkin doesn't "get" comedy writers, which I also felt with "Studio 60."

Javier Bardem doing "Cuban Pete" was really, really great and fun, one of my favorite moments - but again, wrong age for Desi. Would have been amazing if he were the right age, and if NK could move her face. Not being snide here.

Meandering. Boring. How can a movie about Lucy not have one laugh? For two hours I couldn't stop looking at the horrible makeup on Nicole Kidman. This is your typical biopic. And when you have Sorkin at the helm, it is going to be bloated, overwritten and plodding. There has to be a better one down the road.

I have been a fan of the "I LOVE LUCY" show since I was a kid in the 70's, watching the re runs.

Over the years I have picked up the occasional tid bits of information about them, but never really went looking. I was eager to watch this movie, and admittedly did learn a lot.

What was missing for me, was the emotional attachment that I was very surprised I did not feel towards the movie characters considering the fond feelings and memories I have towards the original people.

I felt like Nicole Kidman just lacked something that Lucille Ball had.

I dont know if it was her acting as much as it was a screenplay that didn't quite reach the depth of, or really capture, the obviously intense time during that particular week of their lives. The movie did show a few flashbacks to give the audience a chance to connect and understand the characters more deeply but for me it did not do that. It only left me feeling more disengaged. Both of them, I am positive, had interesting and incredible lives, just by the lone fact of the time period they lived in. Everyone who lived during that time has a shared understanding that we , as later generations just dont get. The sreenplay fails to fully make the audience FEEL what that timeframe in our history felt like, and todays generations cant really emotionally connect without understanding THAT first. For me, That was the first step backwards. Without Kidman bringing to life, Lucy, I was emotionally absent.

As usual, I am in the minority again about my opinion of the actor Bardem. I actually think he did better than Kidman in bringing his character to life. In fact, it was both male actors (Bardem as Desi and Simmons playing Fred) that blew the 2 main female leads, (kidman as Lucy and Arianda as Ethel)out of the water.

It was an okay movie. A little stiff, a little unemotional. And it did make me really crave for someone to step up and write a great mini series about Desi and Lucy. Because I dont think you have a chance of capturing them in a 2 hour movie.

And of course, maybe hire an unknown yet exceptional actress to play Lucy. There are plenty to choose from.