Rating: 
Summary: Not bad...not great
Review: I frankly thought this film was going to be better. I could see the ending coming a mile away, and much of the first half of the film was pretty slow going. The scene of the woman in her office after she "kills" the cop is interminable. It just goes on with no point. OK, she's distressed, I get it, I get it. Joe Mantegna is good, as usual, but not phenomenal. Lindsay Crouse is adequate. Some of the lines are real clinkers, like when the author tells Mike "let's talk turkey." I mean, who talks like that? William H. Macy was wasted in a dopey scene that was totally unrealistic. Is this Mamet's best? No, no, a thousand times no. Glengarry Glen Ross was far superior entertainment.
Rating: 
Summary: Great plot, great acting, wonderful atmosphere
Review: I've watched this movie at least four times, and I intend to watch it again. Now that I know it's available on DVD, I may have to buy both a player and the disc. I could see some of the twists in the plot coming, but not all of them, and I wasn't sure that I was right. And now that I know how the plot goes, I still love watching it because I enjoy the performances of the actors so much. The dialogue is great, and so is the simple, sinister atmosphere that is created so effectively. Definitely one of my all-time favorite movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Good film!!
Review: If you like films like "The Game", films that you don't know where the lies end and the truth starts, films that keep you on your seat, THEN you should absolutely buy this one. It's a really good thriller!
Rating:
Summary: **CORRECTION to mistake in earlier review**
Review: In my earlier review of this film I mistakenly wrote that Mamet's wife Rebecca Pidgeon appears early in the film as an autograph seeker. The autograph seeker is Willo Hausman, daughter of the film's producer, Michael Hausman. And I should have known better. I had a "senior moment" on that one. Apologies to Ms. Hausman and Ms. Pidgeon.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't believe these reviews!
Review: It may be due to the fact that I was only 7 when this film premiered, but I found House of Games to be atrocious! The acting was laughable (Lindsay Crouse was dull and wooden, while Montagna's lines came across comically though not usually intended to be so), the plot was entirely transparent (just imagine - getting conned by con men), and the character development left much to be desired.
An interesting side-note, however, is that this movie reminds viewers just how much influence tobacco companies had on movie houses back in the '80s. The whole film is one long drag off a Camel, and even Granny happily lights Crouse's cigarettes with her vintage lighter.
Do not purchase this movie without first watching it!
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and surprising
Review: It's difficult to write a review of a story with as many twists and turns as "House of Games", but suffice to say that Mamet fans will find the setting familiar -- con men one-upping each other in seedy gambling halls, tough guy talk, house-of-mirrors plot twists. Those who aren't fans of the theater may find the acting, dialogue and pacing of this movie a bit stilted, but in my view it's classic "Mametiana", well worth the time spent watching it.
Rating: 
Summary: House of ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Review: Lindsay Crouse does a hilarious impression of Keanu Reeves on horse tranquilizers, but that can't save this movie. The plot twist is as deceptive as in "Rocky IV". The dialogue, oh, the dialogue. Here's a sample: Mike: I can not explain what I do. Margaret: I do not mind. Mike: You do not? Margaret: I do not. Mike: It is good you do not. Margaret: Yes. I would say quite good. Mike: Yes. Quite good. Me: The president is on the phone, and he says they Russians will use nuclear force if one of you doesn't use a contraction! Mike: I would say that is a problem. Margaret: You would? Mike: Yes, I would. Margaret: I do not see how you would not, really. Bomb: Kaboom. This isn't the worst movie ever; just my least favorite.
Rating:
Summary: Who is the real con artist ?
Review: Lindsay Crouse plays a psychologist who is treating an adictive gambler. In the middle of their session, he pulls out a gun. He tells her he owes money to an underworld bad guy, which he can't pay back. That he has no choice but suicide. He also tells her-- and this is VERY important to the Mamet's theme--that for all her treatment, nothing has changed. It's just words. All she does is talk. Crouse decides she'll prove him wrong. She will meet and negotiate with the 'badguy'---Brilliantly played by Joe Mantegna. What follows is a series of plot turns--which I will not give away and spoil the film for you. In fact, the plot is so well crafted that it's easy to lose sight of the theme. This is Mamet at his cynical best.
----------------------------------------------------------------- There are cardplayers who make their living by finding and fleecing suckers but consoling them by saying they just had bad luck that night. Dance instuctors who seduce women into falling in love with them but never have sex with them, as that would spoil the romance they weave--and the steady cash flow. Indeed in these two examples (Politicians, gurus, and used car salesmen are too easy ) this IS what professional card players and dance teachers are TRAINED to do. How do you think they make their money? Compared to them Mantegna's character is almost honest. But what of Crouse? Is she good and truly caring or is she simply another type of con artist? One who makes the kind of bucks that cardsharps and Tango instructors would envy in a cushy job where she simply 'talks' for a living ? Don't decide until the end. Great film noir.
Rating:
Summary: Best movie on the subject of the confidence game
Review: Mamet's writing and directing is so singular--the repetitions, the deadpan delivery, the reflexive conversations--it is tempting to make fun of them, but House of Games, about the ultimate con and its repercussions, has the perfect premise, the perfect structure, for Mamet's unique style. Mantegna was never better as the shark who implicates the icy best-selling psychiatrist (played equally well by Lindsay Crouse) in his nefarious games. The photography is suitably slick and noirish, and with Mamet's usual corral of character actors (some of the best since Hollywood's studio days) and a script that will thrill, puzzle, and delight the viewer, there is nothing short of perfection in this tightly constructed movie.
Rating:
Summary: Good -- but Spanish Prisoner better executed
Review: Maybe we've just become too clever since this movie was made, but most of the twists and turns are predictable. Ten years ago, I think more people would have been fooled. A bigger problem with the film, though, is that the actors don't seem to mesh with their dialog. This is especially true of Linday Crouse, who can't get in synch with the screenplay, and I think her mistakes detract from/obscure Mantegna's job. (Come to think of it, she's sort of like this in Buffy, too...) Mamet films -- even the ones he didn't direct -- have a particular flow and tone to them, but the actors louse this one up a little. I think this was Mamet's directorial debut, so maybe that contributed to it. By the time Spanish Prisoner came along, everybody knew what it meant to act in a Mamet film, and so that movie flows a lot better than this one. On the upside, several of the supporting performances are great, and there are many familiar faces (look out for William H. Macy, who shows up for about 10 seconds). All in all, it's worth seeing, and is obviously essential for Mamet fans, but I liked the Spanish Prisoner more.
| 
