Watch Lucy For Free

Fresh and Exciting

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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.

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.

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.

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.