House of Gucci reviews

[Mister Tee]

I got to the end of House of Gucci, and my reaction was "And...?" It was an easy enough watch -- I didn't feel the 2 1/2 hours -- but it didn't add up to anything important enough that I knew I had to hear this story. It began promisingly enough: for the first 2/3, there seemed a chance the narrative would build to some crescendo. But the latter portion of the film didn't feel like it fulfilled what had preceded, and the violent event that climaxed the film felt more lurid than any kind of natural culmination. It also felt awfully rushed past: I'd like to have known how the plot was uncovered by prosecutors -- were the perpetrators so comically inept it unraveled immediately; if so, why did it take two years to bring to trial? The film leaves all that a mystery.

It may be that, in a effort to cut the already-lengthy film down some, later scenes were eliminated that would have made things clearer. Or it may be there were elements lacking from the script stage. If it's the latter, I think you have to say Ridley Scott was the wrong director for the project. I think we've said many times here that Ridley Scott is a very solid craftsman/image-maker/performance-generator -- he makes his films look/sound/feel professional. But he's not a person who senses what's lacking in a script and reworks it, either by sending writers back for another draft, or covering over the bumps in his directing. Scott's movies are exactly as good as his screenplays are, and, in this one, the screenplay falls short.

I can say exactly where it loses its way for me: when Maurizio's home is invaded by feds, and he takes off on his motorcycle. The film charts his trip across the border as if it's the von Trapp family climbing every mountain -- it pauses for maximum tension at the checkpoint -- but it never lets us know the upshot of the sequence. Did it matter that he escaped to Switzerland -- given that Patrizia was there to take the brunt? What happened to the investigation, anyway? It's barely mentioned again. The main impetus for the raid appears to be to get Maurizio to St. Moritz, where he can kick it back up with an old flame. And that sequence didn't really work for me, either, as it seemed light on explanation -- is Maurizio just an aging goat tired of his wife, looking for revived sex life? Or is the intention that, back among his own (educated) class for the first time in a while, Maurizio notices how declasse his wife is? If so, that could have been dealt with more artfully: he seems to go after Patrizia from the moment she intrudes on the scene; it would have worked better if we experienced Maurizio's embarrassments and understood why he would drift away. As it is, he just comes off as a faithless husband; since, at the same time, he suddenly starts screwing over his family in business dealing, it has the effect of turning a a character -- in whom we've invested a certain amount of hope -- into a weasel not worth our attention. Sabin suggests what the filmmakers wanted was for Patrizia to have, inadvertently, made him into a monster who eventually destroys her. That's interesting, and may scan, but I have to say it didn't register for me while I was watching the film. Which is a flaw, because it might have made me more sympathetic to Patrizia in that final third. The scene outside Maurizio's apartment could have made me feel for her crushing letdown. But I was already, by then, anticipating her violent turn; I was at least half-expecting her to shoot him then and there. (Which is the disadvantage of having vague knowledge of how a film ends.)

I don't think Lady Gaga is to blame for this; she plays what they give her to play, and I thought it was a perfectly effective performance within that limitation. Best actress awards, maybe not (though I can more easily understand people singling her out than Kidman.) The acting on the whole is not a problem in the film -- Driver and Pacino are actually quite good, as well, as is Jeremy Iron, despite being terrible casting for an Italian. (Why are we so strict about some ethnic casting, but let an uptight Brit play a demonstrative Italian?) As for Jared Leto, who's been accused of wild hammery -- I don't think it's anything more than an actor doing his best to play a role for which he's wildly miscast. Since Paolo is clearly the Fredo of the family, I kept thinking how John Cazale would have played the role: with just as much sympathy, but without a metric ton of make-up, or demonstrating how much he was stretching just to fill the part.

The only other things I truly didn't like about the film were the (literally) operatic sex scene in the trucking firm office, and the overuse of late 70s/early 80s disco oldies to carry story weight. And, maybe, the title card at the end that points up how nobody from the family is involved with the company anymore. That might have been a pertinent piece of information at the point in the film where Maurizio has his final face-off with Aldo and Paolo -- but, by the end, it's almost extraneous to what the film has turned into.

[Sabin]

Ridley Scott has said he's likely going to release an extended cut. I could see that being a net positive for this film.

https://theplaylist.net/ridley-scott-ho ... um=twitter

[Reza]

When I was done with House of Gucci, I was confident I enjoyed this film the most of my triple feature for reasons I'll get into in a moment. But now, hours later, I can so clearly recall individual moments and storylines from Spencer and Marvel's Eternals than this film, which makes me suspect. That should not be the case.

I'm inclined to say my favorite thing about this film is that it's a movie. It's not a limited series or television. It's a movie. It's one story. This whole saga bends itself into a three act narrative that I got to enjoy once and leave. Movies are great! More things should be movies. Also, it's over two and a half hours and it doesn't feel much over two. It just flies right by, which probably contributed a bit to how disposable some of it feels. It suffers a bit from the fact that there really isn't much of a governing philosophy behind anything that we're watching. It's really all surfaces, which is not unsurprising for Ridley Scott. I never thought I would say this but I bet Lee Daniels wouldn't have done an awful job with this film. Certainly, he has more business telling this kind of story than Ridley Scott. I have no doubt that 80% of the film would be worse but 20% of it would be better and that part is effectively painting a specific portrait of Patrizia and what this life meant to her. It's very clear that everyone in this film (Ridley Scott especially) thinks they're making some version of The Godfather. Sure, some of it is over the top and fun, but there are more scenes in boardrooms than in any other film I can remember. But you feel at times that Ridley Scott is mostly concerned with keeping all the parts moving forward. But the parts do move forward. I still don’t totally know what attracted Ridley Scott to this project exactly. If I had to guess, I'd say the lifestyle porn of it, but it’s a decent time.

The most interesting idea in the film comes late in the film. It's not really explored as well as it should be. It tells a dark twist on the Michael Corleone story where Patrizia turns nice boy Maurizio into a Gucci and then he turns on everyone including her. Lady Gaga is playing it correctly. ​An Oscar nomination wouldn't surprise me. She plays Patricia as a baby-faced social climber who can’t hide her joy at getting away with all of this — and she likes the boy too! But Ridley Scott is so concerned with juggling different subplots that the film never quite plays out as a satisfying personal horror film for her (to witness the monster she’s created) and her character gets a bit lost.

And Jared Leto?

[Sabin]

When I was done with House of Gucci, I was confident I enjoyed this film the most of my triple feature for reasons I'll get into in a moment. But now, hours later, I can so clearly recall individual moments and storylines from Spencer and Marvel's Eternals than this film, which makes me suspect. That should not be the case.

I'm inclined to say my favorite thing about this film is that it's a movie. It's not a limited series or television. It's a movie. It's one story. This whole saga bends itself into a three act narrative that I got to enjoy once and leave. Movies are great! More things should be movies. Also, it's over two and a half hours and it doesn't feel much over two. It just flies right by, which probably contributed a bit to how disposable some of it feels. It suffers a bit from the fact that there really isn't much of a governing philosophy behind anything that we're watching. It's really all surfaces, which is not unsurprising for Ridley Scott. I never thought I would say this but I bet Lee Daniels wouldn't have done an awful job with this film. Certainly, he has more business telling this kind of story than Ridley Scott. I have no doubt that 80% of the film would be worse but 20% of it would be better and that part is effectively painting a specific portrait of Patrizia and what this life meant to her. It's very clear that everyone in this film (Ridley Scott especially) thinks they're making some version of The Godfather. Sure, some of it is over the top and fun, but there are more scenes in boardrooms than in any other film I can remember. But you feel at times that Ridley Scott is mostly concerned with keeping all the parts moving forward. But the parts do move forward. I still don’t totally know what attracted Ridley Scott to this project exactly. If I had to guess, I'd say the lifestyle porn of it, but it’s a decent time.

The most interesting idea in the film comes late in the film. It's not really explored as well as it should be. It tells a dark twist on the Michael Corleone story where Patrizia turns nice boy Maurizio into a Gucci and then he turns on everyone including her. Lady Gaga is playing it correctly. ​An Oscar nomination wouldn't surprise me. She plays Patricia as a baby-faced social climber who can’t hide her joy at getting away with all of this — and she likes the boy too! But Ridley Scott is so concerned with juggling different subplots that the film never quite plays out as a satisfying personal horror film for her (to witness the monster she’s created) and her character gets a bit lost. But I’m inclined to say it succeeds as tabloid escapism.

[Reza]

Lady Gaga gets the notices but could this be the film that finally brings home an Oscar for Sir Ridley?

Since the film is sitting at a gloomy 60 on Metacritic, I'm going to give this a pretty confident "No".

Not that this is any great indication but those twin boys who review films on YouTube absolutely hated this movie. A complete contradiction to the three reviews posted below.

[Mister Tee]

Lady Gaga gets the notices but could this be the film that finally brings home an Oscar for Sir Ridley?

Since the film is sitting at a gloomy 60 on Metacritic, I'm going to give this a pretty confident "No".

[Reza]

Lady Gaga gets the notices but could this be the film that finally brings home an Oscar for Sir Ridley?

[Sabin]

Reviews are dropping. It sounds like it's caught somewhere in the middle of camp and The Godfather, not quite one or another, but it doesn't sound like a bad thing.

https://variety.com/2021/film/reviews/h ... 235112936/
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/11/house ... 234680909/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/n ... ouse-drama