The social media embargo was lifted yesterday evening for Ridley Scott’s “House of Gucci” and, as expected, the reactions are mixed. There’s a scant few positive tweets here and there, and the people who do seem to like it are very self-aware about how silly the whole thing is.
Either you go along with ‘Gucci,’ knowing full well that you’re watching a 164 minute farce or you don’t go along with its semi-unintentional camp. It’s as simple as that. There is no in-between, mostly due to the fact that subtlety isn’t this movie’s forte.
Lady Gaga’s performance seems to be mostly accepted as a more-than-decent kind of thing, but she shouldn’t be. It’s grossly overacted clown theatre on her part. If she was a perfect fit for the “Star is Born” role, she’s truly in over her head here, lacking the depth and nuance to fully give this role any substance.
Jared Leto knows exactly what kind of movie ‘Gucci’ is, which is why his scenes are the only ones that actually “work” —his performance is some kind of twisted Italian caricature to the nth degree. Pacino is fine. Irons is subdued and looks bored out of his mind. Salma Hayek is catastrophically bad.
The self-serious 164 minute runtime is incredibly excessive and the ultimate downfall of this movie. Why on earth would Ridley Scott go to these lengths to tell this story? More people would probably be willing to give this movie a better reaction if it weren’t for the mind-numbingly lengthy runtime. This is hammy stuff on Scott’s part and belongs within the lower-tier works of his career (1492, G.I. Jane, A Good Year, Body of Lies).
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim's "You Can See Everything" has been in theaters for, what, three days? And it's already the highest-rated feature film of all time on Letterboxd.