I really wanted to like this movie! I love Nicole & Javier and I of course am an I Love Lucy fan. But this just did not work for me. I couldn't see the characters, only the actors. It felt off with everything, like a puzzle that didn't fit. Maybe I'm not an Aaron Sorkin fan? I'm not sure but this one wasn't my favorite and I couldn't finish it unfortunately.

Either I know more about Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo than their children do, or their children, being investors in this film, didn't care what Aaron Sorkin wrote.

Of course, there is such a thing as dramatic license - okay. However, this went above and beyond. I will cite a few things here, but by no means ALL:

Ricky and Lucy didn't meet the way as shown in the film. Lucille showed up at a rehearsal to say hello to the director of whatever movie Ricky was doing, and she was a mess from her previous film, all as shown. When she came back another time, Ricky didn't realize it was the same woman. When he did, he said, "That's a hunk of woman!"

Immediately before the filming of episode 68 ("The Girls Go Into Business") of I Love Lucy (which did not include fixing Fred up with a woman), Desi Arnaz, instead of his usual audience warm-up, told the audience about Lucille and her grandfather. Reusing the line he had first given to Hedda Hopper in an interview, he quipped:

"The only thing red about Lucy is her hair, and even that is not legitimate."

Lucille Ball was 31 when she made the Big Street at RKO, not 39. RKO had suspended her when she refused to be billed fourth in a film. Her good reviews for The Big Street brought a better offer from MGM.

What was the deal with mentioning Judy Holliday? Holliday wasn't around, even on Broadway, until the mid-40s and didn't make a splash in film until circa 1949. She was no rival to Lucille Ball.

Jean Arthur and Barbara Stanwyck were sought for The Big Street; Runyon insisted on Ball.

Aaron Sorkin's script is a muddled mess, combining the Communist scare and little Ricky's birth, which happened in two different years. The result for me anyway is that they both got lost amid Lucy's staging of one scene in the show, which was episode 22, not 37.

Also, in real life, Lucille Ball was referred to as Lucille, not Lucy.

Regarding the performances, I thought Nicole Kidman had the voice and personality down flat. As far as her face being frozen, I'm not sure that much makeup was necessary. Bardem looks nothing like Arnaz, so why the pressure to have Kidman look exactly like Lucy? She had the hair, the eyes, the voice, the essence. A little less makeup would have been fine.

I know people say she was miscast because they wanted a lookalike. Debra Messing would have been fine for the "I Love Lucy" part but she is not the actress that Kidman is. Bardem was excellent. J. K. Simmons and Nina Arianda were fabulous as Fred and Ethel. Actually the whole cast was excellent and totally wasted.

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.

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.

This new Amazon original movie came available today, my wife and I watched it streaming.

I suspect there are two different audiences and levels of appreciation for this movie - those who grew up watching "I Love Lucy" and those who didn't. My wife and I are the former, I was 12 when the show ended its run, I have a very clear memory of the TV show, a little from original shows and more from watching reruns. In the hit show, Lucille Ball as Lucy was a bit dimwitted.

In real life Ball was nothing like that. She was bright and driven and often attended too little to the feelings of others. She had high standards for episodes, while her husband Desi was the businessman behind it all. Together they formed quite a team and "I Love Lucy" was one of the most successful entertainment enterprises ever.

This movie focuses on a particular week during which they geared up for that week's episode, but also were hit with headlines that implicated Ball as a member of the Communist Party. Plus Lucille found out she was pregnant with her second child. When the episode was about to be filmed for the week there was a call from J Edgar Hoover to Desi, shared with the live audience, but that was creative license, in real life it didn't happen. The movie also shows some of the formative years, as far back as the 1940s, and the events that shaped her career direction.

Kidman and Bardem are wonderful in their roles and the whole movie is a superb glimpse into what "I Love Lucy" was all about, especially all the things we DIDN'T see during the telecasts. I viewed it again a few weeks later and enjoyed it even more because I had a clearer image of what all was going on. I will likely view it a few more times, it is that good.

Also worthwhile looking up is a 2020 documentary "Finding Lucy", 83 minutes long, now easily available for free viewing on the internet. I watched it also and it helps appreciate the movie even more. After she and Desi were divorced she bought out his share of Desilu studios. She became the boss, she made the tough decisions. To her credit it was during her watch that two groundbreaking TV series were approved - 'Mission: Impossible" and "Star Trek." I'd say she was overall a pretty successful lady in show business. I love Lucy.

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.

Aaron Sorkin is a good TV writer and, when he has a director who can manage his diarreah of the word processor, such as David Fincher did on "Social Network", can deliver a good screenplay. However, giving this loggorheac the keys to the film kingdom (i.e. Allowing him to direct) is akin to letting a vampire loose in a blood bank. Things are going to get out of control and the viewer will soon be lost in the detritus of Sorkin's unending spew of verbiage, some of it clever, most of it compulsive, and way too much of it deadeningly repetitive. The result, for this viewer at least, was to gaspingly pull the plug about three fourths of the way through and, to mix the metaphor, come up for air. And once I was able to breathe and reflect upon what I had seen I was able to summon not one iota of interest in or sympathy for this skilled comedienne nor care whether her marriage succeeded or failed and quite honestly found Sorkin's evaluation of Ms. Ball as a great dramatic actress who could have been the equal of Bette Davis in "All About Eve" shockingly stupid. C plus.

As TV's "I Love Lucy" reaches 20 million households a week in the US in the early 1950s, it's star, Lucille Ball, is fighting Communist affiliation rumors started by columnist Walter Winchell; she's also fighting with husband and co-star Desi Arnaz about his lack of marital attention and is about to reveal to the television audience that both she and her TV-counterpart, Lucy Ricardo, are "expecting". Although this handsomely-produced portrait of the legendary actress is an entertaining one, there are a myriad of timeline issues and anachronisms within the film which "I Love Lucy" purists are bound to be troubled by. There's also a hurdle in buying Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz (Bardem has Desi's Cuban-accented voice--and his flirtatious charms--down, but he's too old for the role). Kidman fares better as Lucy, proving her naysayers wrong and giving a wry, tough, courageous performance. Lucy's off-camera relationship with Vivian Vance (played by Nina Arianda) is curiously edgy despite reports throughout the years these two were the best of friends; meanwhile, codger William Frawley (J. K. Simmons) is shown to be irascible yet cogent and sharp in place of the heavy drinker Arnaz went out on a limb to have cast. I didn't care for the documentary-like framing device of the show's creators discussing the series in the present day (there's enough flashbacks and flash-forwards happening here); however, when writer-director Aaron Sorkin gets down to business, he delivers some terrifically tasty behind-the-scenes action. **1/2 from ****

Lucille Ball was amazing. The show I Love Lucy was amazing. This movie is not, and it's so frustrating because not only is it about an American icon and an iconic show, the historical aspect of the communist stuff fascinating. This writing is boring and creates no dramatic tension or emotional attachment to the characters.

Nicole Kidman was not a good choice for Lucy. She is a beautiful woman but she has made certain choices regarding her appearance, and those choices include the heavy use of Botox and fillers, which consequently results in a very limited range of expressions on her face. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what made Lucy special. Lucy was one of the most expressive actors on TV. She quite literally a flexible face and used those great expressions to make us laugh.

Everything about this movie was frustrating. The sets and costumes look good though.

I thought I had heard all about Lucy and Desi that I was going to hear, but this was a game changer. This was a completely new view of Lucy. Others seems to like Nicole Kidman. I thought she brought out the soul of Lucille more than others in the past have. I don't think she looked like her though. I felt Javier Bardem was wonderful and Ricky. They could have done a better job with his makeup however. When I Love Lucy was shot, he had quite a baby face and was quite young. He was younger than Lucy and yet she showed as a much younger face.

The other thing that bothered me was the apartment set. Prior to giving birth to Little Ricky, there was no window in the back of the set. There was just a piano there. After the baby was born, the Ricardo's needed a larger apartment so they moved into one with the window.

I always hate when they have thunder storms in Los Angeles. LA has very little heavy rain and absolutely no thunder storms. I know why movies do this. It makes the storm seem worse.

All in all, well worth the afternoon for a long movie. You can really tell what it was like to make TV shows in the 1950s.

I genuinely can't think of a more successful writer in the last 30 years than Aaron Sorkin. For nearly 3 decades now he's consistently written engaging and entertaining scripts that often surround subject matters that don't initially come across as cinematic. Even the films of his I don't quite like as much as others (e.g. Steve Jobs or The American President) are still elevated by their razor sharp, witty dialogue. I also think he's proven himself to be a very capable director as I've loved both Molly's Game and The Trial of The Chicago 7. Unfortunately though not only do I think Being The Ricardos is the worst film he's directed so far, I think it's easily the worst script he's ever written. That's not to say that the writing fails entirely but I just don't think it manages to tell this potentially interesting story in an engaging way.

It's become clear that Sorkin scripts create for great performances and despite my issues with the film overall it does succeed in that area. When I looked into real life clips of Lucille Ball I couldn't believe how well Nicole Kidman pulled of her cadence and mannerisms. It doesn't feel as though she's trying to impersonate Ball rather that she's trying to give of an impression of her while putting her own spin on it. I thought she pulled off the comedic scenes really well and the more dramatic scenes excellently without it ever feeling jarring. I also really like Bardem's performance here, he has great chemistry with Kidman and I really felt that he pulled of all aspects of Desi Arnaz really well. I've never really seen him give a performance like this before and I'd loved to see him play more characters like this in future. Since the film is ultimately about these two characters the supporting characters don't really get given much but I would say the cast as a whole all did the best job they could with what little they had.

I think the film does also have a good sense of humour to it. All the funny lines and gags feel as though they come directly from the 50's sitcoms that the script is clearly trying to mimic and it's pulled off really well. I think my favourite aspect of Being The Ricardos is its examination into of the production of I Love Lucy. It's really fascinating to see the work that went into these episodes down to the smallest detail and I think anyone whose interested in film from any era will get a kick out of that part of this movie. I liked the technique of switching to black and white for the scenes set within the sitcom and it was one of the few things that made the film feel more alive than it otherwise was.

To my utter surprise the biggest thing holding back this film was Aaron Sorkin himself, as both a writer and a director. I think he's transitioned into directing his own dialogue very well and I honestly think he was snubbed of a Best Director nomination at the Oscars last year. I think his work as a director has been unfairly maligned by many but I just didn't think there was anything special about his work behind the camera in this film. It's not that it's poorly helmed just that there wasn't really any energy to it. In fact, my biggest issue here is that lack of energy overall. Despite centring around comedians I didn't think there was any life to this script whatsoever and it felt far too self serious for its own good. The script makes a point of saying how much a threat Lucille Ball faces during this week of production but I never once felt that on screen. It just felt as though I was being told to care rather than actually being given any reason to. I also don't think that dialogue was up to Sorkin's usually standard. A common critique of his work is that his dialogue can sound overwritten and I have to say this film is the first time I've agreed. Too often it felt like words that were written rather than genuine conversations between people and I don't think I could quote a single line after only having seen it a day ago.

I suppose my biggest disappointment with Being The Ricardos is that it just didn't make me feel anything. I never once felt engaged and I didn't think any of the tension or personal stakes that Sorkin was trying to set up came across successfully on screen. Kidman and Bardem are great and it's not without its interesting aspects but there's just very little that's impressive about this film. Even those Sorkin films I don't like as much I still return to every once in a while but I couldn't ever see myself watching this again. Having said all that though 1 weak script in an otherwise completely impressive 30 year career is not a bad average to have and I'll still be excited for whatever his next project ends up being whether he directs it himself or not.

6.3/10 - C+ (Middling)

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.

This isn't certainly a The Trial of the Chicago 7 (a very good film unfairly criticised by some butthurt film bros), but it's still interesting. Bring the Ricardos had a big potential, a great cast (Kidman is really great) and delivers a good story, with some fantastic dialogue (as usual, by Sorkin).

However, the structure didn't work for me. Sometimes, it was hard to understand where exactly we were and it's time jumps were really abrupt. It also bites off more than it can chew and some some storylines lack development.

1. Nicole Kidman is well made up and tries hard but with all that make up and surgery she has no facial movement, which often gives her that wooden expressionless look.

2. The sets are often dark & murky, not sure if it's deliberate but it's too dark.

3. The interjections by the story tellers while interesting & insightful, make it more a docudrama, so it's got a bit of a TV series feel.

4. The story rarely has upbeat moments it's dramatic turn after dramatic turn, it gets tiring !

5. It's too long, again perhaps better suited to a 3 part special.

Lucille Ball was a shrewd businessperson, and she knew it. Lucy Ricardo was a wacky redhead in a domestic sitcom setting, and she knew it. If you are expecting Lucy Ricardo, you are going to be disappointed.

I actually liked this film, but agree Nicole Kidman was miscast.

It doesn't help that film is inaccurate in its time frame of I Love Lucy series and the incidents that occurred.

I have never been a big fan of "I Love Lucy" and the reason I mention this is that I am sure I'm not alone. But despite not being a fan, I still enjoyed and appreciated "Being the Ricardos".

The story is less a bio-pic and more a snippet giving you a look at what it was like behind the scenes at the show. And, as a result, it gives you an appreciation for the real life Lucy and Desi. In the film, Lucy is shown as an incredibly driven lady...with great instincts about TV. And, you see that Desi is more than just a band leader and actor...he was instrumental, like Lucy, in running the show and making sure it was perfect for 1950s audiences. This I found very fascinating...as well as a few other snippets involving William Frawley, Vivian Vance as well as the writers, producer and director....it was all very interesting...like you're a fly on the wall watching it all go down in front of you.

So is this a great film? No. I thought in a few ways it could have been a lot better. I have no idea WHAT they did to Nicole Kidman to make her look the way she did, but her face looked like plastic. I would have MUCH preferred they let her look like herself instead of trying (and failing) to make her look like Lucy. I also didn't love how the film bounced back and forth in time. It was like the movie was trying too hard to do too much. But despite these minor complaints, I did find it worth seeing...and with an interesting message about feminism before they even used the term 'feminism'.

By the way, it is NOT an important thing at all, but during the episodes involving Lucy's pregnancy, they were filmed in the original apartment set...not the later one that you see in the film. No biggie...but a mistake. I assume they probably just did it this way because the newer set LOOKED nicer and bigger...and would probably look better on film.

This very easily could have been a vehicle for cheap laughs and a portrayal of the pablum that was so prevalent in the 1950's. Instead we get a nice dive into the social tenor of the times. There were actually strong and forcibly intelligent women that could cut through the rigid and uncompromising views of the men in power. Nicole Kidman is mesmerizing. By the end of the film she becomes a mirror image of Lucy's appearance. Definitely a movie for someone who has a good grasp of the actual facts and the societal mood of the times.

With the top-name talent associated with this production, and with the subject being Lucy and Desi, I was expecting a major treat.

Both of the leads feel miscast. Kidman didn't capture "Lucy Ricardo" very well, (perhaps due to not having the facial elasticity to allow Lucy-style expressions}, and Jardim - while a great actor, didn't bring to life the younger Desi's charisma and musicality.

Finally, Lucy and Desi's accomplishments are far more interesting than this movie shows.

I don't remember Lucille Ball being Botoxed to death and looking like a piece of shiny wax fruit. Nicole Kidman looks like she's wearing a mask...it's a wonder that she can smile without her face cracking. A word to the wise....lay off the cosmetic surgery, Botox, and fillers. It makes you look so much worse.

When the casting of Nicole Kidman was announced as Lucille Ball, I, like many raised my eyebrow - Kidman is a masterful actor, one of the most ambitious and adventurous of her generation. She is also, known for subtlety and naturalism. I thought to myself "how is she going to pull of playing essentially, a clown?". That was until I read up on the project - this is not a film adaptation of "I Love Lucy", it is not Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem starring as Lucy and Ricky Ricardo. It is in fact a look at the behind the scenes troubles and issues within the Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz's marriage. I went into watching this film expecting it for what it was - a drama. I knew not to expect a laugh-a-minute comedy in which Kidman and Bardem recreate classic scenes which are, in mine and many people's opinion, inimitable.

Set across the space of one week from the table read on Monday morning to the shooting of the episode on Friday evening; it is written with a compressed timeline in which we see quite frankly, what many people would consider the week from hell. There is a threat of Lucille being outed as a communist, the Arnaz's must face studio executives, producers and sponsors with the news that Ball is pregnant and they want a storyline in which the character is pregnant - something that had never been done on TV at the time. At the same time, rumours are rushing around the media that Desi is cheating on his wife. This is presented in a linear; Monday to Friday narrative with some flashbacks that portray some of the biggest moments in Ball's career and her relationship with Arnaz. There are also scenes in which a documentary-type set-up is used. The 'interviews' are with older versions of Bob Carroll Jr., Jess Oppenheimer and Madelyn Pugh (played respectively by Ronny Cox, John Rubinstein and Linda Lavin). The film has pace, efficiency and effectiveness - running at 125 minutes; it really does fly by. The weakest part of the layout is in fact, the 'interview' type scenes; they slow the action down and feel like an unnecessary way to inform the audience of what has just happened.

The writing is very strong; it features all of Aaron Sorkin's famous wit, pointedness and intelligence and it avoids falling into the patronising nature of "The Trial of the Chicago 7", in which the whole film felt as if Sorkin was saying 'I am much smarter than anyone else'. He writes every character with detail, precision and heart - he goes bold with his decision that it is not "I Love Lucy" but instead a look at the geniuses behind the show. Lucille especially is written as a perfectionist, a slave-driver and incredibly dead-pan, this creates a perfect contrast to the clown we see in the TV show. I will now watch "I Love Lucy" with a new appreciation of Ball's genius. There are a couple of moments in which the language feels to modern in lines such as "I literally just said that." and "Don't gaslight me." These were not phrases of the time.

The performances are outstanding across the board. Nicole Kidman's Lucille Ball is one hundred percent believable, lived in and heartfelt. The performance is an impressive mix of immersion and technique. One thing I've always admired about Kidman is the ability to hide her technique and make everything feel spontaneous and completely in the moment. In playing Ball, she is able to show what a fabulous, methodical and technical actor she is. Lucille was incredibly technical in her approach to comedy and her process and Kidman takes every line, every moment, every beat and is a revelation. I think this is probably her strongest performance in a film since her 2012 pulpy and sweaty performance in "The Paperboy". She is long overdue a second Academy Award and is well deserving for this performance. Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz is charming, loveable and incredibly determined. His drive to make the show work is incredibly infectious and we are with him every step of the way. There are strong supporting turns from J. K. Simmons and Nina Arianda as William Frawley and Vivian Vance (Ball and Arnaz's co-stars in "I Love Lucy" and the rest of the ensemble are brilliant.

"Being the Ricardos" isn't "I Love Lucy" - it doesn't really even feature more than five minutes of "I Love Lucy"; but those scenes are portrayed with authenticity and a fabulous Lucy, Ricky, Ethel and Fred from the respective performers. The film is, in fact, a look at a marriage, past mistakes or decisions that might not be entirely appropriate as we age and most of all, the masterful perfectionist and technically brilliant woman that became America's sweetheart. I think I love Lucille more than Lucy.

4 stars out of 5.

I'm a huge Aaron Sorkin fan, however 'Being the Ricardos' feels like a film made specifically for people in the industry to enjoy. When filmmakers do that it is typically because they are chasing awards. Sorkin's legacy doesn't need more awards, it needs to keep making memorable films. There's very little that is memorable about 'Being the Ricardos'.

As with every Sorkin film the dialogue is exquisite. In fact it really is what keeps this film from being a total disaster. Even when nothing interesting is being talked about (which is often in this film) he stills finds a way of making it come across in an intriguing way. Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem and J. K. Simmons have all been nominated for Academy Awards for this film and basically for no other reason than the great lines they are given to deliver.

'Being the Ricardos' isn't necessarily a bad film. It's just not one that is going to stick with anyone for long after watching it. There's enough charm and charisma in the cast to keep it afloat, but this one will be gone from my mind 24 hours from now. 6/10.

Alert to Hollywood: Hey! Wake up! There are many actors and actresses in Hollywood who could have done justice to the fabulous Lucy and her hubby Desi Arnaz, so why, oh why, cast these two, Kidman and Bardem, who look nothing like them and are well older to boot. Nicole Kidman has had her day, now she's a plastic replica of herself. I never understood why she got all the parts she did, in my opinion (and I'm allowed to have one) she's never been very good. And Bardem, a good-looking man (the misshapen nose never bothered me), but as Desi Arnaz? GOOD NIGHT! It's like Hollywood is playing a broken record! Stop being lazy, do some auditions, find the RIGHT people for the part! You know, someone who actually looks like the real people you are portraying, someone who can act, someone who can actually move their face!!!

I have now decreed I will never again watch anything with Kidman in it. If the producers think "Get Kidman, she'll bring in the viewers" they got that completely wrong! Kidman's name on a film is a surefire way NOT to sell tickets anymore. If I want to see wooden I can look at the mannequins in a shop window. And it's free!