“House of Gucci” Film review

By Quinn Marcus

Ridley Scott has produced not one but two ambitious movies in the same year. The man’s a rockstar. First, if you saw it, a medieval epic called The Last Duel, a surprisingly excellent study of toxic masculinity, and a film that ended up being one of Scott’s best in my opinion. And now, House of Gucci, inspired by the true story of one of Earth’s most famous fashion brands. A masterful depiction of greed and power that dares to ask the question: what if The Godfather or Succession were poorly written, campy soap operas? Let’s just say, immense appreciation for what Scott was trying to accomplish doesn’t make up for how little this film accomplishes. It’s funny, because for such a long movie, running at nearly 2hrs 40mins, the film really is just an extended version of the trailers we got, if you’ve seen them, you’ve practically seen the movie in its entirety, there are few moments of surprise. Now, before we get off on the wrong foot, I didn’t despise this movie, it’s not completely awful, but, to put it simply, I was hoping for a little more of an intelligently crafted experience than what I got.

House of Gucci is one of the messiest and most self-indulgent features we’ve gotten all year. It’s everything I was worried it was going to be from the trailers. The more I think about it, the more flaws I find. I’m not gonna lie, when I walked out of the theater, I thought I enjoyed myself, and then I started to look at the bigger, very Oscar-baity picture. However, I want to be fair, so let’s start with what I legitimately liked, shall we? The first half, or, to be more specific, the opening hour of the film was highly entertaining. I loved how the central romance in the film was introduced, I dug the soundtrack, and the performances weren’t all too bad. For a while, the film remained admittedly cheesy, but fun nevertheless. The supporting cast was easily the best aspect of the film for me, Jeremy Irons and Adam Driver were great, but the true standout was a shockingly hilarious Jared Leto. His character was awesome, and he’s pretty much the only one who undergoes a substantial arc in the film, so that was nice. I honestly wouldn’t mind Leto being considered for some awards recognition next year, he carries this film from start to finish, every time he was on screen, I burst out laughing, he made his scenes from House of Gucci a joy to watch. Then again, if your movie is so meh to the point where Jared Leto becomes the main redeemable aspect, you’re in a bit of trouble.

Actually, the comedic parts of the film were the ones that worked the most for me, there are a few solid laughs here and there, and when the film treads into farcical territory, it significantly improves from the cliched “oh, it's such a scandal!” vibes the rest of the film gives off. Alright, that’s unfortunately where my positives come to a halt. Let's discuss what House of Gucci does wrong. Characterization, structure, tonality, drama, and interesting cinematography are a few essential aspects of any film that House of Gucci lacks almost completely. For starters, the cinematography was totally flat, too clean, and colorless to be eye-catching, and for a film based around this subject, I expected there to be more work put into making the aesthetic of this film pop. The color-grading is so bland, that when the film makes these awkward switches to black and white, I originally didn’t notice; that’s how drained of life the visuals are. Secondly, there’s this cool thing called character development which the screenplay of House of Gucci makes a lazy and nonsensical attempt at. It’s almost as if halfway through writing the script, the writers just forgot what the motivations of these characters were and began to randomly jot down plot points.

Seriously, the big “change” our leads go through was so abrupt and rushed. One minute they’re likable, the next: annoying assholes that are impossible to care about. This brings me back to the importance of tonality and how House of Gucci couldn't decide whether or not to be a campy satire or a financial family drama. These conflicting sides of the script ultimately deprive the film of a substantial flow, thus ridding the characters of consistency. I struggled to find reasons to remotely sympathize with these horrible human beings, and the screenplay doesn’t make things much easier. Salma Hayek shows up in a few scenes to be exclusively used as a plot device setting up this eventual assassination that once again; felt so quick and out of place. Lady Gaga and Al Pacino were the most forgettable performances for me, they were overacting so hard during this film, and it occasionally got painful to watch. Lady Gaga was terrific in A Star is Born, and Al Pacino is one of the greats of all time, but they didn’t work here at all. The film is such a desperate imitation of similar tv shows and movies of the same genre, succumbing to every trope imaginable. There are a few great things about it, but the experience was such a mixed bag overall, and there was part’s I could barely stand. I don’t think it’s irritating beyond comprehension, and it was a relatively amusing watch, but at the end of the day, House of Gucci is too forgettable to love.