Lady Gaga reveals that she committed to method acting for House Of Gucci and stayed in character

Advertisement

NEW YORK POST

Rating:

Johnny Oleksniski writes: ‘Mystifyingly, the front-page killing and ensuing court battle only take up the last 10 minutes of this sleep aid. The preceding two-and-a-half hours are a glacial yet completely uninformative history of the luxe brand framed as a “Succession”-like struggle for power among the Gucci family…

Advertisement

‘But the “Bad Romance” singer focuses so much on tics and facial expressions and her Slavic accent that there’s no soul, genuineness or vulnerability to the character. It’s like watching the “Paparazzi” music video on a loop for three hours…

‘If only Scott’s vision was as visually dazzling as a Gaga video. “Gucci” is a pale, ugly film whose underwhelming glamour doesn’t match the grandeur of a European fashion house. It looks as pricey as a knock-off Gucci bag on Canal Street.’

THE TIMES

Rating:

Advertisement

 Kevin Maher writes: ‘With a flabby screenplay, alas, and a bunch of halfcocked thesps, the results, as they are here, can be atrocious. This howlingly inept biopic, probably his worst film since The Counsellor, has several moments of such knuckle-chewing awfulness that the entire movie seems to lurch into wonky self-parody and could possibly secure a lucrative box-office future as a laugh-a-long camp classic in the vein of Showgirls or The Room.’

THE TELEGRAPH

Rating:

Robbie Collin writes: ‘I only wish I could report that Ridley Scott’s new film – the 83-year-old master’s second this year, after October’s The Last Duel – managed to match its lead actress’s pace for its entire two-and-a-half hour duration. But while House of Gucci is never less than watchably raucous, it’s also essentially a soap opera with airs, rambling along from episode to episode without ever settling into its stride.’

Advertisement

 EMPIRE 

Rating:

Alex Godfrey writes: ‘Despite the story’s operatic sweep, despite its undeniably Shakespearean entanglements, it feels oddly undramatic, the filmmaking itself quite detached. And certainly, despite all the catastrophe, you won’t be shedding tears over anybody, but maybe that’s the point? It’s a case-study of a business gone amok, and while you don’t truly get to know any of these people as actual human beings, you probably wouldn’t want to.’

DAILY MAIL

Advertisement

Rating:

Brian Viner writes: ‘It is a muddle, confused in both narrative and tone, and not especially helped by the decision to get the entire ensemble talking foreign-accented English, as if it were an extended episode of ’Allo ’Allo. Disconcertingly, the plot keeps deviating from the relationship between Patrizia and Maurizio to focus on the boardroom grapple for control of the company. 

‘Another problem is the film’s length – over two and a half hours. Ridley Scott and his producer – who happens to be his wife Giannina Facio – could have cut 30 minutes from the movie. That said, House of Gucci is by no means devoid of pleasures. It is sumptuous to look at, with terrific period detail, and Pacino especially is in fine form. But, certainly, the scene-stealer is Gaga.’

GAMES RADAR 

Advertisement

Rating:

 Neil Smith writes: ‘Despite its tonal missteps and O.T.T. indulgences, House of Gucci is always more chocolato than the alternative. Yet there are times it bears resemblance to a flea-market knock-off rather than the pricey real deal it so stridently seeks to emulate.’

I NEWS

Rating:

Advertisement

 Christina Newland writes: ‘A wobbly and unstoppable juggernaut, barrelling ahead with the brazen confidence of a flashy Italian supercar with its ‘check engine’ light on, House Of Gucci is a glorious, trashy crime melodrama based on real life. It pings from tragicomic to tragic to unintentionally funny from moment to moment: sometimes in the same scene.’

 

Advertisement
Advertisement

Similar Posts