Directing: B-
Acting: B-
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

There’s a lot to say about House of Gucci, but why don’t we start with the accents? Director Ridley Scott casting American actors to play real-life Italian characters who speak English but with a thick “Italian” accent is . . . a choice. There’s a reason many people discussing this film make reference to Chef Boyardee: because it isn’t far off the mark.

That said, for the most part, somehow, I felt it worked. With one notable exception, the principal parts are well cast, particularly Lady Gaga as Patrizia Gucci. Lady Gaga is the biggest surprise of the movie in that she’s not only the central character, but she’s the best thing in it. Furthermore, even with their adopted Italian accents, neither she nor Adam Driver as Maurizio Gucci are over the top about it.

The thing is, the trailers for House of Gucci made it look rather like a lot of this story is played for laughs, and when you watch the movie, you see that was clearly not Ridley Scott’s intention. This is a straight up drama, with just a couple of mildly amusing moments, none of them tied to over the top performances.

Misleading marketing aside, Scott’s problem isn’t tone so much as it’s overindulgence. Now, I don’t mind a long movie so long as it can justify its own length—Ridley Scott’s other movie this year, The Last Duel, released only a month and a half ago, managed it. (It was also a massive flop at the box office, but that’s a separate conversation.) House of Gucci dwells far too long on the early stages of Patrizia and Maurizio’s relationship, as Patrizia quite pointedly inserts herself into his life. Very little of it is necessary to the motion picture version of this story; half an hour could have been cut and it would still be 128 minutes long—still too long.

So now let’s talk about Jared Leto, who plays Maurizio’s cousin Paolo. Everything about his part in this movie is mystifying to me. He’s under a ton of makeup and prosthetics, to make him look like a frumpy middle-aged man. Note to Hollywood: there are plenty of talented actors who are already frumpy and middle-aged, famous ones even! Leto’s presence is one of the most pointless examples of stunt casting I have ever seen, and to top it off, his performance is the worst in the film. He really takes that “Chef Boyardee” accent and runs with it—to the point that it’s like he’s in a different movie. There’s a point of consistency to be made as well, as both Jeremy Irons as Maurizio’s father Rodolpho Gucci, and Al Pacino as Paolo’s father Aldo Gucci, occasionally drop their accents altogether. That’s far less distracting than Leto’s mystifyingly exaggerated performance.

In spite of all this, I found myself surprisingly engaged by the story in House of Gucci, which is based on true events I knew nothing about. So, even though I knew Patrizia arranged to have Maurizio murdered, I had no idea whether she succeeded. I became invested in what the outcome would be, even though the central character is a manipulative and overbearing woman, which, let’s be honest, isn’t the best. I may not be that pleased with how Patrizia is written, but that doesn’t lessen Lady Gaga’s embodiment of the role, which does a better job of showcasing her acting talents than A Star Is Born did (even though that movie was far better).

I just wish the movie weren’t so long, or that Ridley Scott had his actors deliver the lines straight, in their native accents. We see plenty movies about characters in other countries who speak English with American accents and we accept it just fine; in fact it feels far more natural than this. Truth be told, this story would have been far better served as told by an Italian director, using Italian actors, speaking in their native language, and Americans can just read subtitles. The final product given to us by Scott winds up coming across as less authentic than just about any other choice that could have been made.

House of Gucci is still fairly entertaining, mind you. It just would have been a lot more so with some major tightening up and a few more sensible choices in its execution. I would suggest that someone should reign in Ridley Scott’s worst impulses, but the man is 84 years old. On the one hand, that makes it incredible what kind of work he’s still doing. It also means it’s more impressive than it would be if he were half his age, and not riding on the legacy of several earlier masterworks to which this movie can’t even compare.

Overall: B-