Review: ‘House of Gucci’ Is Pure, Unapologetic Decadence

This image released by MGM shows Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani in "House of Gucci." (MGM via AP)
This image released by MGM shows Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani in "House of Gucci." (MGM via AP)
TT
20

Review: ‘House of Gucci’ Is Pure, Unapologetic Decadence

This image released by MGM shows Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani in "House of Gucci." (MGM via AP)
This image released by MGM shows Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani in "House of Gucci." (MGM via AP)

Everything in “House of Gucci” is over the top. The accents. The performances. The fashion. The settings. The runtime. The music. The greed. This movie knows exactly what it is and, sweetie, it is gloriously decadent, ridiculous fun.

There is an alternate universe in which “ House of Gucci ” is a subtle Italian-language film. Perhaps it’s a more straightforward tragedy. Maybe it’s even a limited series taking the viewer back to the origins of the Italian luxury label, in 1921. But director Ridley Scott, and screenwriters Becky Johnston and Roberto Bentivegna, have chosen the route of operatic artificiality. You don’t cast Jared Leto as clownish Fredo-type and have him act against a father played by Al Pacino by accident. Big is the point.

Based on a book by Sara Gay Forden, “House of Gucci” is about the dissolution of the Gucci dynasty. Their reign over the eponymous leather goods and fashion house lasted only three generations. But as any new money family knows, by the time the third generation takes over, usually no one is left to remember a time when there wasn’t extraordinary wealth and privilege.

And this is where we pick up with the Gucci family, with the business being run by founder Guccio Gucci’s sons Rodolfo (Jeremy Irons) and Aldo (Pacino). Scott’s film glosses over the other second-generation siblings in part to streamline an already sprawling story but mostly to hammer in the father-son themes. Aldo’s son is Paolo (Leto), a fool with delusions of grandeur and little talent to back it up. Rodolfo’s son is Maurizio (Adam Driver) who is smart but would rather study law than join in the family business.

Our entry to this world, however, is an outsider: Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga), a local bombshell and party girl who meets Maurizio by chance. Her eyes light up with manic purpose when she hears his last name is Gucci and she makes it her mission to become part of his life. This might sound sinister, especially if you know where it all ends up, but it’s actually quite charming at first. The beginning of their odyssey plays like a breezy romantic comedy, with Patrizia as the gentle hunter of Driver’s soft-spoken and bashful prey. Both are happy and in love and they stay together even after Rodolfo cuts his son off for choosing to marry someone beneath his station. And it’s true, Patrizia might not have much in the way of education or culture and mistake Klimt for Picasso, but she a way with people too and, we’ll come to find out, is a natural Machiavelli.

After a brief honeymoon period in which Maurizio gets to play poor and work at her family’s truck company, an opportunity back in opens when Aldo invites the newlyweds to his birthday. Maurizio emerges from the opulent proceedings even more convinced that the simple life is for him, but Patrizia is not about to let this precious window evaporate. And soon they’re both in deep.

But this isn’t just about a reluctant heir and his ambitious wife pushing him toward his destiny. This film pokes a hole in the very concept of mass luxury and its central artifice. At the time, before “Dom and Tom" took over, Gucci was in a bit of a crisis, with Rodolfo being perhaps overly precious about expansion, Aldo a little too obsessed with profits and expansion and the “brand” in jeopardy of being devalued with fakes and oversaturation. These cracks in the veneer help Patrizia and Maurizio wrestle power for themselves, until he decides he’d rather go at it on his own. At that point, it really is the beginning of the end.

“House of Gucci” presents a fascinating and insane story that just keeps getting more unbelievable. It was a big, glamorous mess and deserves a big, glamorously messy movie, right down to the performances and all-over-the-place accents. But if the idea of watching Leto and Pacino chew the scenery together sounds unappealing, this movie might not be for you. Everyone is going for broke here.

And in spite of the absurdity, it is stupidly watchable. If you don’t know or remember the details of what went down, save the search for after. Just wear your gaudiest designer logo, order a martini at the bar and give in to the easy pleasures of “House of Gucci.”



‘How to Train Your Dragon’ Tops the US Box Office

This image released by Universal Pictures shows Mason Thames, as Hiccup, riding Night Fury dragon, Toothless in a scene from "How to Train Your Dragon", (Universal Pictures via AP)
This image released by Universal Pictures shows Mason Thames, as Hiccup, riding Night Fury dragon, Toothless in a scene from "How to Train Your Dragon", (Universal Pictures via AP)
TT
20

‘How to Train Your Dragon’ Tops the US Box Office

This image released by Universal Pictures shows Mason Thames, as Hiccup, riding Night Fury dragon, Toothless in a scene from "How to Train Your Dragon", (Universal Pictures via AP)
This image released by Universal Pictures shows Mason Thames, as Hiccup, riding Night Fury dragon, Toothless in a scene from "How to Train Your Dragon", (Universal Pictures via AP)

Neither Pixar nor zombies were enough to topple “How to Train Your Dragon" from the No. 1 slot at North American box offices over the weekend. The Universal Pictures live-action remake remained the top film, bringing in $37 million in ticket sales in its second weekend, despite the sizeable new releases of “Elio” and “28 Years Later” , according to studio estimates Sunday. “How To Train Your Dragon” has rapidly amassed $358.2 million worldwide, The Associated Press reported.

Six years after its last entry, the Dean DeBlois-directed “How To Train Your Dragon” has proven a potent revival of the DreamWorks Animation franchise. A sequel is already in the works for the $150 million production, which remakes the 2010 animated tale about a Viking boy and his dragon.

Pixar's “Elio” had a particularly tough weekend. The Walt Disney Co. animation studio has often launched some of its biggest titles in June, including “Cars,” “WALL-E” and “Toy Story 4.” But “Elio,” a science fiction adventure about a boy who dreams of meeting aliens, notched a modest $21 million, the lowest opening ever for Pixar.

“This is a weak opening for a new Pixar movie,” said David A. Gross, who runs the movie consulting firm FranchiseRe. “These would be solid numbers for another original animation film, but this is Pixar, and by Pixar’s remarkable standard, the opening is well below average.”

“Elio,” originally set for release in early 2024, had a bumpy road to the screen. Adrian Molina — co-director of “Coco” — was replaced mid-production by Domee Shi (“Turning Red”) and Madeline Sharafian. Back at Disney’s D23 conference in 2022, America Ferrera appeared to announce her role as Elio’s mother, but the character doesn’t even exist in the revamped film.

Disney and Pixar spent at least $150 million making “Elio,” which didn’t fare any better internationally than it did in North America, bringing in just $14 million from 43 territories. Pixar stumbled coming out of the pandemic before stabilizing performance with 2023’s “Elemental” ($496.4 million worldwide) and 2024’s “Inside Out 2” ($1.7 billion), which was the company's biggest box office hit.

“Elemental” was Pixar's previously lowest earning film, launching with $29.6 million. It rallied in later weeks to collect nearly half a billion dollars at the box office. The company's first movie, “Toy Story,” opened with $29.1 million in 1995, or $60 when adjusted for inflation. It remains to be seen whether “Elio's” decent reviews and “A” from CinemaScore audiences can lead it to repeat “Elemental's” trajectory.

With most schools on summer break, the competition for family audiences was stiff. Disney’s own “Lilo & Stitch,” another live-action remake, continued to pull in young moviegoers. It grossed $9.7 million in its fifth weekend, bringing its global tally to $910.3 million.

“28 Years Later” signaled the return of another, far gorier franchise. Director Danny Boyle reunited with screenwriter Alex Garland to resume their pandemic apocalypse thriller 25 years after “28 Days Later” and 18 years after its sequel, “28 Weeks Later.”

The Sony Pictures release opened with $30 million. That was good enough to give Boyle, the filmmaker of “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Trainspotting,” the biggest opening weekend of his career. The film, which cost $60 million to make, jumps ahead nearly three decades from the outbreak of the so-called rage virus for a coming-of-age story about a 12-year-old (Alfie Williams) venturing out of his family’s protected village. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer and Ralph Fiennes co-star.

Reviews have been good (90% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) for “28 Years Later,” though audience reaction (a “B” CinemaScore) is mixed. Boyle has more plans for the zombie franchise, which will next see the release of “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” next year from director Nia DaCosta.

“28 Years Later” added another $30 million in 59 overseas markets.

After its strong start last weekend with $12 million, A24’s “Materialists” held well with $5.8 million in its second weekend. The romantic drama by writer-director Celine Song and starring Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans has collected $24 million so far.

Next weekend should also be a competitive one in movie theaters, with both “F1,” from Apple and Warner Bros., and Universal’s “Megan 2.0” launching in cinemas.