Yeah, this is where I am. I think for a biopic to be successful, especially when the subject is someone contemporary, the actor playing them has to disappear into the role so you don't see famous-actor-playing-famous-subject but rather famous subject being so well portrayed you don't think of the actor at all but of the story. Looks (make up and hair) go a long way in aiding that illusion. But voice, speech cadence and mannerisms all do that as well, and all that has to come solely from the actor.
I just wonder who writes a movie about Lucille Ball and thinks... Nicole Kidman will be great in that role. Did she need to audition? Was there anyone else even considered? It just feels very calculated and cachet and not necessarily done for good creative reasons.
Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I don't find Nicole Kidman all that great an actress. She's fine. I've liked her in some stuff and found her stiff and unconvincing in others. There was an earthiness and saltiness about Lucille that I am not convinced Nicole can tap into. I could be wrong. I mean, I would have never in a million years thought Jamie Foxx could do Ray Charles and he absolutely killed it.
Javier Bardem, otoh, I think is a really good actor. The physical transformation of him into Desi wouldn't be all that extreme. But my own personal opinion is that he gives off this air of menace. LOL. Is Desi a secret abuser? A member of the Cuban mafia? Did he and Lucy drop a lot of bodies as they became rich tv moguls? I can see it...