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."

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 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.

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.