POSITIVES<\/span><\/p>\nAs expected, Sorkin’s dialogue is once again the potential prize piece here, maintaining a rhythmic consistency and underlining sharpness to their appeal that makes the conversations during conflicts pop with a magnetic indulgence. Sorkin surprisingly subdues this aspect during scenes between just Lucy and Desi, prescribing more of a soft-spoken candor between them that elicits the uniqueness in connection of their circumstantial chemistry, without ever sacrificing the tangent of the aforementioned tempo that Sorkin has based a career off of. Beyond this, the simplicity of the transformational efforts in the range of production design flourish with them a seamless rendering of retro wardrobe and colorfully diverse cinematography that not only accurately captures the essence of 1950’s television, but also solidifies an authenticity in character designs, to which costume designer Susan Lyle has accurately done her homework and should at the very least earn an Oscar nomination for such efforts. As for the story, there’s unfortunately more bad than good here, but the few things the film does do right pertains to the complex dynamic of Lucy and Desi, which permeates effortlessly in the way they each accurately define what the other is thinking, without anything more than a brief expression to paint their readings. On top of this, the beneficial intrigue into Ball’s knack for the business, which while chaotic to those try-hard co-workers she often interacted with, does provide a rich sense of knowledge and dedication towards the craft that she supplanted towards an audience she very much respected in the process.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NEGATIVES<\/span><\/p>\nUnfortunately, not everything is hunky dory during the engagement, and for everything that Sorkin excels at as a screenwriter, he more than squanders away as a directing force. The main problem certainly stems from a directionless structure that completely obliterates the concepts of storytelling on its way to a triple-tiered narrative too ambiguous to ever feel informative, and too rushed to ever feel accessible. To even say the story is boring would be giving it too much credit, as the ideas of urgency or compelling drama are never utilized in a way that makes them palpable to the many swinging plates that Ball continuously juggles in a life that is figuratively coming apart at the seams. Likewise, the scope from a trio of writers on the set of “I Love Lucy” providing an unraveling narration to the events is problematic for an array of reasons. First, the flashback sequences predated the events on the show, so it’s impossible that such knowledge could even stem from them in the first place. Secondly, little within the narrative or visual framing conveys that any of these events are from the writer’s perspectives, which in turn creates a lazy execution for a framing device that becomes virtually pointless for anyone with trying to piece its logic together. Finally, without the trio of writers specifically mentioning what scene is set at which part of the story, it’s often difficult to discern the events in their chronological order, especially when the consistency of character appearances and spontaneity of sequences lacks any clues in the ambiguity of their designs. As for the title, it’s something that Kidman and Bardem have grave difficulty with. Part of it certainly stems from the air of their questionable casting, but the bigger emphasis is in the individualized efforts of the performances that never allowed me to see them as anything other than Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem playing dress-up. For Kidman, a complete lack of emotional influence condemns the occasion, primarily in a body language that is anything but synonymous to Ball’s energetic familiarity. As for Bardem, he lacks any of the charismatic allure or seediness to Desi that often made him a target in the public eye, and with the confines of an accent that is anything but consistent towards the Cuban Arnaz, as well as a complete lack of prosthetics to distinguish his appearance, often feels too underwhelming and uninteresting for a role that should’ve literally leaped off the page with expectations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
OVERALL<\/span><\/p>\nAfter top tier smashes with the likes of “Molly’s Game” and “The Trial of the Chicago 7”, Sorkin follows up matters with what is easily his most disappointing film to date. “Being the Ricardo’s” is a lazy, convoluted shell of an homage toward its iconic duo, and one that is ultimately defined with the weight of expectations and responsibility that get the best of it. The benefits of a transfixing production and Sorkin-scintillating dialogue are wasted away on flat performances and incoherent storytelling that never give audiences a chance to hook themselves to the larger-than-life characters at the foreground of the story. AARON!!!! YOU’VE GOT SOME SPLAINING TO DO!!!<\/p>\n
My Grade: 5\/10 or D+<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Directed By Aaron Sorkin Starring – Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem, Nina Arianda The Plot – Follows Lucy (Kidman) and Desi (Bardem) as they face a crisis that could end their careers and another that could end their marriage. Rated R for adult language being the ricardos trailer – YouTube POSITIVES As expected, Sorkin’s dialogue is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6753,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[14,18],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6752"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6752"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6754,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6752\/revisions\/6754"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}