#26
Posted: 10/19/21 at 5:11pm
Biopics are still films after all, so I’d rather have a great performance than somebody doing an impression. I think she sounds great from the clips.
Aaron Sorkin's BEING THE RICARDOS film on Amazon Prime — Page 2
#27
Posted: 10/19/21 at 7:15pm
Jordan Catalano said: "I like how people are acting like Nicole Kidman is some novice who may or may not be a good actress and may or may not be able to pull off a character, like she has something she has to prove to gain respect."
Kidman is a fearless talent. Half of the voiceover in this trailer had me saying, "sounds like 'Masha' from Nine Perfect Strangers." Kidman certainly has nothing to prove but, like many of the greats, has still managed to pull off plenty of misfires.
#28
Posted: 10/20/21 at 11:44am
BroadwayNYC2 said: "Biopics are still films after all, so I’d rather have a great performance than somebody doing an impression. I think she sounds great from the clips."
Exactly. Unfortunately, there will always be people who think these biopic performances should resemble an Elvis impersonator in a Las Vegas tribute show.
#29
Posted: 11/10/21 at 9:45am
New trailer with plenty of Nicole as Lucille
#30
Posted: 11/10/21 at 9:53am
Kidman's doing a great job with the voice. The facial expressions look pretty good too.
When the original trailer came out, I made an idiot of myself on Twitter thinking that Arianda was Kidman. I'm not kidding. 
In that tiny clip sitting at the table, I thought Arianda looked more like Ball than like Vance. She didn't look full enough in the face for Vance. But some of the clips of her here look a little bit better and more Vance-like.
#31
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
Posted: 11/10/21 at 2:33pm
She definitely has the voice down, but her face is too smooth, the eyebrows are from another planet, and her facial expressions seem to be just bugging her eyes out. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm still not seeing it.
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
#32
Posted: 11/10/21 at 2:51pm
Casting by Madame Tussaud
#33
Posted: 11/14/21 at 12:40am
Sorkin’s truly in a league of his own. BEING THE RICARDOS may be a little too inside baseball for some, but I ate it up — the speedy dialogue, the quick wit and yes, the walk and talks. And the whole cast was great. Shame on me for doubting Kidman could nail Lucy. Big standing O.
https://twitter.com/scottfeinberg/status/1459755568688627714?s=21
#34
Posted: 11/14/21 at 2:38pm
#36
Posted: 11/14/21 at 6:01pm
I always take early Twitter reacts with a grain of salt, but I very much hope the reviews here are true. Lucy and Desi deserve a great movie!
#38
Posted: 11/19/21 at 10:21am
Wow - airbrushed within an inch of their lives! They look like mannequins/wax figures
#39
Posted: 11/19/21 at 1:03pm
Hate the title, feels like a cheesy Hallmark title or TYA book.
But love me some Sorkin and Kidman, so I'll be there.
#40
Posted: 12/20/21 at 10:56pm
FYI, it's been available to watch since earlier tonight.
#41
Posted: 12/21/21 at 1:47am
Just finished it on Amazon. It's cute, a little slow in spots. Love the Citizen Kane style of filming especially at the end.
#42
Posted: 12/21/21 at 9:21pm
It’s not a great movie— I’m not sure all the flashbacks and recreations of episodes were necessary. The leads were miscast, but Kidman did a better job than Bardem. Kidman’s Lucille Ball voice was pretty much impeccable. I enjoyed the scenes with Vance and Frawley although I have some issues with their characterizations. My heart really did break for Lucy at the end, and that’s something.
#43
Posted: 12/21/21 at 9:25pm
This was excellent. The ending wrecked me.
#44
Posted: 12/21/21 at 11:58pm
Sorkin being Sorkin. Blah
#45
Posted: 12/22/21 at 4:47am
I am still trying to get to the end of this movie. It is INCREDIBLY boring and lacks focus. Sorkin keeps starting a story element, but then drops it quickly, only to pick it up later after it's forgotten and no longer of interest.
It's difficult to tell who the characters are (both main cast and supporting). Supporting characters share both a younger and older version of themselves, but although they were real people in life, I would bet most viewers won't know who they were. As NO ONE in this movie has a clear handle on the real-life physical/vocal characteristics of the people they are portraying, it's difficult to keep track of who's who.
Nicole Kidman spends almost all of the movie playing Lucille as a one-note bombast. I do understand however that it's difficult to act when you're spending most of your time trying to keep your eyes wide open (so they look bigger than they physically are). I never have a sense that her constant steamrolling is meaningful, or artistically sound - even though I *should* feel that in her portrayal.
The voice she slips into when she is reenacting the Lucy episodes is so, SO unbelievably bad. >oof<
Even JK Simmons' (who is the only actor I expected to like in this mess) version of William Frawley was oddly portrayed. When he appeared as William Frawley on screen, he appeared to be much thinner. As Fred Murtz however, he was definitely in a fat suit. What's up with that?
It's pretty common knowledge that Lucille was a heavy smoker. Why are so many people around her smoking, but not Lucille (save for when the cigarette sponsor comments on the brand of cigarette she smokes at the beginning of the movie)? Even in times of stress, we see Lucille drinking - but not smoking.
The time jumps in this movie are also very confusing. As Lucille has no distinguishing physical characteristics during any given timeframe, it's very hard to know if a scene is taking place while she is pregnant? in the past (pre-"I Love Lucy"
? the present (whatever year that might be, as the whole movie takes place in the past)?
And what time period are the narrators in? Granted, I haven't reached the end of the movie yet to know what might possibly be revealed re: their purpose/presence, but honestly, I have no idea why they're even in the movie at all, other than to literally TELL the audience something rather than have Sorkin SHOW us.
Yipes. This thing is a hot mess. I realize now that Lucy Arnaz and others used the phrase, "captured the essence of..." as a way of politely saying, "If it weren't in the title, you'd have no idea who these people are."
...and speaking of the title, why "Being the Ricardos"? Why choose the fictional character name when the movie is supposed to be about the real people creating those characters?
#46
Posted: 12/22/21 at 7:35am
Love the film. Saw it at the movies and again on Amazon Prime last night. It’s Sorkin so it was even better second time around. Truly Nicole’s best work on film and the industry accolades are fully merited. Without imitating Ball she WAS Ball. Impossible now seeing anyone else in this film. The overhead crane shot at the end with the music slowly soaring destroyed me. I was a mess. Can’t wait sit to watch it again. It’s such a great Sorkin ride.
#47
Posted: 12/22/21 at 11:06am
Add me to the list of those that LOVED this. I grew up watching old ILL re-runs and tend to like Sorkin so it was a 1+1 = 3. It reminded me of Sorkin's Studio 60 on Sunset Strip tv-show, but here the stakes are much higher/you care about the main character(s), so you are invested in whether or not "they'll be able to put on a show this week" (unlike in Studio 60).
"Observe how bravely I conceal this dreadful dreadful shame I feel."
#48
Posted: 12/22/21 at 6:05pm
John Adams said: "I am still trying to get to the end of this movie. It is INCREDIBLY boring and lacks focus. Sorkin keeps starting a story element, but then drops it quickly, only to pick it up later after it's forgotten and no longer of interest.
It's difficult to tell who the characters are (both main cast and supporting). Supporting characters share both a younger and older version of themselves, but although they were real people in life, I would bet most viewers won't know who they were. As NO ONE in this movie has a clear handle on the real-life physical/vocal characteristics of the people they are portraying, it's difficult to keep track of who's who.
Nicole Kidman spends almost all of the movie playing Lucille as a one-note bombast. I do understand however that it's difficult to act when you're spending most of your time trying to keep your eyes wide open (so they look bigger than they physically are). I never have a sense that her constant steamrolling is meaningful, or artistically sound - even though I *should* feel that in her portrayal.
The voice she slips into when she is reenacting the Lucy episodes is so, SO unbelievably bad. >oof<
Even JK Simmons' (who is the only actor I expected to like in this mess) version of William Frawley was oddly portrayed. When he appeared as William Frawley on screen, he appeared to be much thinner. As Fred Murtz however, he was definitely in a fat suit. What's up with that?
It's pretty common knowledge that Lucille was a heavy smoker. Why are so many people around her smoking, but not Lucille (save for when the cigarette sponsor comments on the brand of cigarette she smokes at the beginning of the movie)? Even in times of stress, we see Lucille drinking - but not smoking.
The time jumps in this movie are also very confusing. As Lucille has no distinguishing physical characteristics during any given timeframe, it's very hard to know if a scene is taking place while she is pregnant? in the past (pre-"I Love Lucy"? the present (whatever year that might be, as the whole movie takes place in the past)?
And what time period are the narrators in? Granted, I haven't reached the end of the movie yet to know what might possibly be revealed re: their purpose/presence, but honestly, I have no idea why they're even in the movie at all, other than to literally TELL the audience something rather than have Sorkin SHOW us.
Yipes. This thing is a hot mess. I realize now that Lucy Arnaz and others used the phrase, "captured the essence of..." as a way of politely saying, "If it weren't in the title, you'd have no idea who these people are."
...and speaking of the title, why "Being the Ricardos"? Why choose the fictional character name when the movie is supposed to be about the real people creating those characters?"
If you’re incapable of following a plot, differentiating characters, or telling the difference between a flashback and the film’s real time, then the problem or “hot mess” may not be the film. “Being the Ricardos” is a perfectly appropriate title for the film. The flashbacks told the story of how they became the Ricardos, and the central plot is built around a week beginning with the table read and ending with the taping of an episode of “I Love Lucy.”
#49
Posted: 12/22/21 at 6:27pm
I enjoyed this but I like slow, talky melodramas. I thought Kidman did a fine job. I actually thought the voice she used during the episodes was very effective. It made me realize (which I never did) that Lucille Ball was actually had a different voice for Lucy Ricardo. Kidman did smoke and wouldn’t hydrate before filming to get more of a rasp to her voice which I did hear at times. Lucy wasn’t super raspy at this point. The croak was later in her career.
It also gave me appreciation for all she was up against (racism, sexism) as well as her own blind spots to it. For instance, her not being interested in pushing agendas of the writers that conflicted with some of her conservative values. It also touched on her genius and her madness, which I thought was fair and balanced. Her ideas were often squashed or challenged (most likely due to her gender) and she had to get creative about how to get her way. However at times she was irrational and punishing out of paranoia.
Although the last scene between Lucy, Vivian and William was a little too neat, it was true in terms of Lucy and Viv. They were tough on each other but loved each other dearly. They always came back around to each other. They survived a lot together.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#50
Posted: 12/22/21 at 6:32pm
John Adams said: "It's difficult to tell who the characters are (both main cast and supporting). Supporting characters share both a younger and older version of themselves, but although they were real people in life, I would bet most viewers won't know who they were. As NO ONE in this movie has a clear handle on the real-life physical/vocal characteristics of the people they are portraying, it's difficult to keep track of who's who."
So you're saying you couldn't figure out who the executive producer and the 2 writers who appear in the interviews throughout the film, and whose names and positions appear on the screen at the very beginning, correspond to in the past? There are scenes with literally just the three of them at a table discussing the show, and it's crystal clear who's who. Were you in the middle of doing something else while watching the movie, instead of looking at the TV screen?
Updated On: 12/22/21 at 06:32 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95