amorellehill Just watched this movie on TV - tripped over it and likely wouldn't have watched it any other time because I'd have been expecting it to be as bad as all the OTHER Lucy movies. Boy, was I surprised! I thought it was excellent and Rachel York was excellent IN it. Her voice sounded almost exactly like Lucy. She was a little "prettier" but once her hair was red, she was a GREAT Lucy. I loved the way she did Lucy's most famous scenes and stunts. They didn't look any different than when Lucy did them from the first one on stage to the famous wine vat. She had all the right movements and I thought she was just perfect.I LIKED that they didn't spend a lot of time on Fred and Ethel; they showed that they were cast and she and Ethel had their scenes together, but it was all about Lucy, as it should have been.Danny Pino was a great Desi. I'm really used to seeing him on SVU so it was a little hard to disconnect them, but he did all his iconic scenes very well and if he did his own singing, he was great.I recommend this movie. I was not familiar with Rachel York; clearly this must have been toward the beginning of her career and now she's a Broadway star, but I can't say enough what a great Lucy she played. To be able to get Lucy's nuances and quirks so well, she was top notch.I'm pulling my review out for editing because after reading OTHER reviews, I realize that it was a 3 hour movie but what I saw was cut into a two-hour movie. I didn't see any of her early years (that was my fault; I started 20 minutes late; my first view was when she drove into the driveway in California with her family. I couldn't understand why Buster Keaton was introduced and I clearly saw nothing of the RED scandal. The movie seemed complete as far as I saw it, but I realize now I sure would have liked to have seen the whole three hours.

lovesclassics 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.

froufrou 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.

alyssa (americanjules04) Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.