Rating: 
Summary: Definitely Worth Seeing.
Review: David Mamet's directorial debut manages to impress, even with less than perfect execution. The talented writer delivers a compelling story which handily makes up for the few awkward points of strained acting or poorly executed dialogue. At times this movie seems predictable, and yet throughout, Mamet manages to exploit that predictability and turn it upside down. When you watch this movie, you find yourself equally nonchalant and fascinated. Joe Mantegna does a good job as the cool con-man, and delivers a performance both more realistic and more comfortable than the protagonist, played by Mamet's then wife Lindsay Crouse. Although Crouse does manage to pull off several critical scenes well--particularly the last scene, which is one of the best in the movie. In House of Games, like in so much of Mamet's work, we really see the characters develop: they resist and flounder, but they grow. So many movies these days fail to achieve that simple, yet crucial, development of character. This is definitely worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been better
Review: David Mamet's directorial debut offers a nice story idea, but the sting in the tale becomes obvious far too early, leaving attentive viewers with little to do but wonder just what makes Margaret so gullible. Sure, she's overworked, alienated and emotionally vulnerable, but surely not so stupid as to fall for what is essentially the same trick twice in two days. I just didn't buy it. Most of the performances are stiff, uninteresting, and seem over-rehearsed, thus spoiling Mamet's trademark dialogue which is (or rather would have been) typically exceptional. Mamet is one of my favorite writers, but this film is a big disappointment when you know he can do so much better.
Rating: 
Summary: a night with this movie is a night wasted
Review: Do your taxes, water the fish, turn the outside lights on and wash your car...ANYTHING.If you find that watching paint dry could be a suspenseful, psychological thriller, intruiging type experience then this movie is all for you!!! the acting was terrible, although there wasn't much to work with given the script. The characters are midly interesting only becuase the viewer may care a little bit about why all of them are so aloof & unintersting. As far as the plot goes, each of the cons is seen miles in advance... Save yourself, if your looking for mind-bending suspense you should rent Memento (Guy Pierce) instead.
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie!
Review: Great movie and acting! Wonderful story with intriguing plot.
Rating:
Summary: THANK YOU SIR, I'LL HAVE ANOTHER
Review: Having actually worked on this film, I decided to have a look more than 10 years later, only to find it just as entertaining and clever! Excellent performances, taut editing, and slick Mamet dialogue, (along with some twists and turns!) help make this one of the coolest flicks of all time. It's no wonder that Roger Ebert called it the BEST FILM OF THE YEAR. Be sure to give it a look. PS - Chic, I miss all the fun we had working together, hope all is well with you! KL
Rating:
Summary: You're ALL right!
Review: House of Games is a very interesting movie. However, there are things that drive me crazy about it. For some reason, David Mamet's scripts always have people repeating each others questions. This gets really annoying after only 30 minutes. Plus, the acting seems bad because all of the actors seem so emotionally detached from the goings on. They are like teenagers reading from a script, with zero emotion or interest. Then again, maybe it is simply bad acting.
Rating:
Summary: When the theory is seduced...
Review: House of games is one of my eternal favorites ones. I watch it at least once each year. It's a Pandora's box for everyone. First at all Mamet is a very clever scripter. And after watching Winslow's honor six months ago I think he's one of the most creative directors in the american cinema.
Joe Mantegna has never been best. Lindsay Cruise in his role as psychiatrist is widely believeable.
Grey my friend is all theory, and green the golden tree of the life. This smart sentence in Fausto, would seem to be the starting point for Mamet about the develpoment of this psycodrama that you may well without too much effort, to classify it as a modern film noir.
A famous psychiatrist, that knows everything about the behavior's phenomens of the human being, is really a woman who never has experienced many issues. Suddenly the evil presence of Joe Mantegna will break all her theories , and literally will throw her by a world of new emotions and sensations. An authentic journey by the hidden face life. Interesting script with a high sense of suspense with Hitchockian accents and a touch of Chabrol.This well known and distingued scientist is seduced in the widest sense of the word, by this mysterious man and the world he lives. Slowly you'll be sinking with her in the underworld almost without realizing.
Mantegna works out as a link between Mefistho and Don Juan, and he really wins.
Don't miss this one. If I had to give you the twelve greatest eighties cult movies, this would be one of this selected list.
Rating: 
Summary: Catharsis
Review: HOUSE OF GAMES presents the audience with one who craves relief from a life of quiet desperation. Lindsay Crouse is Dr. Margaret Ford, an author/psychiatrist specializing in addictive behavior. Margaret is also tightly wound. Her workspace is compulsively organized; she wears little make-up; her attire is colorless and severely simple. Her manner of speaking is forceful, but devoid of emotion. And Dr. Ford no longer believes that her professional efforts matter. She hasn't got a life. During an office therapy session, an anguished patient brandishes a pistol and threatens suicide. Margaret promises to help the man if he'll give her the gun. He does, then reveals that he owes thousands of dollars to a gambler named Mike, and he'll be physically hurt if he doesn't pay up. That night, the doctor goes to THE HOUSE OF GAMES, confronts Mike (Joe Mantegna), and demands that he lay off her patient. Taken aback, Mike claims he's owed only eight-hundred dollars, and will write off the debt if Margaret will join him at his side in a back room card game and help him outmaneuver an opponent. Ford agrees, unaware that the whole scenario is a set-up to bilk her out of six thousand dollars. However, a mistake by one of the scammers allows the mark to detect the ruse. Confronted by Ford's natural outrage, an embarrassed Mike and his co-conspirators say, "Hey, it was nothing personal, just business", and proceed to make amends by becoming sociable. Attracted to Mike, Margaret seeks him out again the next night, and a relationship develops between the two as the latter becomes fascinated with the shadowy world of con artistry. The hurdle I immediately had to get over was Crouse's way of delivering her lines. My wife thought it was just abysmally bad acting. But, on reflection, I decided it was part and parcel of the uptight Ford character along with the attire and personal appearance. Having accepted that, I went on to savor the evolution of the plot, which included a twist that was, in retrospect, perhaps not so surprising. Filmed in Seattle, certain late night scenes are evocative of Dennis Hopper paintings wherein people wait in brightly lighted places for something to energize their lonely lives. As the camera focuses on exterior shots of "The House of Games" or "Charlie's" bar, the neon and florescent signs broadcast their false promise of warmth into the cold darkness of deserted city streets. In the last scene, Margaret's now-colorful clothing is indication that she's experienced a catharsis. Boy, has she ever!
Rating:
Summary: The Best of a Noble Genre
Review: I am a great devotee of the Con Artist movies. The Sting, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Spanish Prisoner (also Mamet) and Traveller all were fine films, but none of them approach House of Games. The reason for that, I think, is that nearly all of these other movies leave the viewer on the outside looking in and the con is always discernable to a person of average intelligence or better. Here, however, Mamet cons the viewer right along with the female protagonist not once, but twice. The effect is terrific. There are a few rough edges in House, but overall it's Mamet's best work outside of Glengarry Glen Ross, which is in a class by itself. It takes a small amount of patience to become involved in the action through the apparently boring opening 20 or 30 minutes, but that is the psychological key to the effect. It would have been very much easier to start off with a bang like The Sting or Indiana Jones, but the initial subtlety of the screenplay (and direction) is what sets up the psychological aspect of the drama and allows such a big payoff at the end. Like most of Mamet's work, this is a thinking person's film and in this regard, in particular, it is a better work than his other effort in the field The Spanish Prisoner.
Rating:
Summary: After some reflection, a better movie than I first thought
Review: I didn't like "House of Games" while I watched it. A lot of its elements were poorly executed, and they added up to an unfavourable experience for this member of its audience. But given a few days reflection, I came to realize just how right those elements actually were. First, there's the comparison between psychiatry and confidence games. At first I felt this was inadequately explained, but then realized that neither side wanted to reveal its hand, to tell the other exactly what their goals were, for fear of being found out and losing the victim's confidence. It reminded me of kung fu, in that the strengths of your opponent must be used against them first, before your own strengths are conjured up to finish them off. Second, the dialogue was terribly hammy at times. An indiscretion like this can be forgiven easily if it was another writer/director. But this is David Mamet we're talking about. Sure his scripts may not have a high pedigree when it comes to realistic talk, but they are usually stylish and interesting. Here, there are some real clunkers. Joe Mantegna, in the space of one conversation, actually says "cut to the chase" and "gonna blow me into a billion bits and pieces" (the second quotation may not be exactly what was said, but it's ineptitude still comes through) with a dead serious straight face. Now, this comes fairly early in the story, so my justification is pretty much the same as above: he didn't want to show the full range of his intelligence, so he resorted to tired cliches and ridiculous alliteration (two signs of a weak mind!) to fool his mark. Later, Mamet does uncoil some lines that are just pure gems, so if your patience prevails you will be rewarded. Third, Lindsay Crouse was just unwatchable. Now, I'm willing to admit that I had certain negative expectations for her (call it "The Curse of Acting in a Mamet Film While Married To Him"; for further examples, see Rebecca Pidgeon in "The Spanish Prisoner"). And she lived up to those negative expectations. It's the coldest, soulless performance I've seen by anyone not Glenn Close. She has no spark, no emotion. And when we get to a scene where she needs to call up some emotion, it looks like acting. Well, she is forgiven for one simple reason: her character is a renowned psychiatrist. And how does one become a renowned psychiatrist? By subjugating their own fears and desires, so they can absorb the fears and desires of others. Crouse's Dr. Margaret Ford never strays from her calculating clinical persona, even when she becomes involved in nefarious events. The one element that I cannot justify is the finale. Explaining why would give away the ending, so I'm not going to do it. But I will say that the epilogue, a cynical recap of the movie's themes, was good enough to wash away any reservations I had. A couple of words about the things I did like on first viewing. It was fascinating to see the machinations of the con games. It gave me the same thrill as when I watch a good Penn and Teller performance. The abandoned nighttime streets were a nice touch, adding to the loneliness of the characters, though they were probably more a necessity than anything seeing as this was Mamet's first movie. The con men are all portrayed with style. Mantegna, an actor who's work I usually don't enjoy, does a nice job. As does Mamet regular (and real life con game theorist) Ricky Jay. And even though I figured out most of the ending fairly early, the story was charming and kinetic enough to keep me entertained.
|
