Customer Reviews

House of Games (Widescreen/Full Screen)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

A story about a writer who gets mixed up with a con-artist. A psychological thriller with twists all over. A classic Mamet film with his classic "abrupt cuts" in the dialogue, acting, film cuts and scene styles. Excellent stuff for 1987.

David Mamet's "House of Games," is another of that director's giant flip jobs. I've been working my way through the Mamet catalogue, and one can't help but feel the director sees the world itself as a giant con. Well, that's perhaps a bit simplistic, but Mamet does cling, in movie after movie, to some core principles. One of these is that you must trust no one. In "Spartan," "The Spanish Prisoner," and "House of Games," this very line is uttered, usually by a villain to an innocent. This sounds like a negative credo, but it really isn't. First, consider who's issuing the warning: the villain. Will the innocent learn from experience? And will the learning result in corruption? (Important questions for Mamet.) Second, trusting yourself and knowing yourself (weaknesses included) in a dangerous world is advisable, necessary, in order to survive . I have to believe Mamet is a big reader of Joseph Conrad.

The story behind "House of Games," involves Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford, a doctor and popular author. Her "big book" is titled "Driven," about compulsive and addictive personalities. It doesn't take long to figure out the book is about herself. So driven is Margaret that she is beginning to make Freudian slips in her conversations, slips that reveal dark corners of her own personality. She may be heading for a breakdown - and a teaching colleague warns her, tells her she must slow down. But "slowing down" comes as another writing project presents itself, seemingly accidently due to the dilemma of a patient , when Margaret is introduced to the world of the Con at a local bar and pool hall called "House of Games." This introduction comes at the hands of Mike (Joe Mantegna), a handsome and slick con man who is willing to provide a tour - though he does warn her: "Trust no one."

To reveal any more would be telling. Like all Mamet films, the dialogue is essential. I don't think I've ever seen a director make such interesting use of dialogue. On one level the dialogue in all of Mamet's films (that I've seen so far) is seemingly stilted. But it works! Why? I can only attribute this to Mamet's precision as a director. What seems stilted, comes across instead as elevated speech - as in Shakespeare. Mamet is a dramatic poet who no doubt has Shakespeare's great maxim engraved upon his mind, and present in the framing of each scene: "Suit the action to the word, and the word to the action." (Good actors must love working with this guy.) So pay attention, there's no fat in a Mamet film, and always plenty to ponder. "House of Games" is no different. See it.

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!

As one other reviewer here very accurately put it: "we've become smarter since this movie was made". Especially when we've since seen mega-stunners like the "Usual suspects" or "Sixth Sense", movies that took the "film with a twist"-genre to a whole new plataeu.
A hotshot psychologist finds out the hard way that her trade doesn't cut it much down at the streets when she becomes emotionally (and otherwise) involved with a con-man and his circuit. As she's awed by all the "rules" and even more so the tricks that make the con-world spin, she asks to be "shown more", only to see that being shown more includes being caught in an invisible and catastrophic spider web. I don't want to give the plot away since this is obviously the strength of the film, but "House of Games" was one of the premier twist films for the time it was made, even if it might seem dated today.

Some of the twists might (emphasis on the "might") be somewhat predictable but that would be the case only for the very initiated viewer.

Mamet has got some great scripts under his belt, but if there's one thing that seriously undermines his film hee (he also directed it) is the acting of J.Crouse. While Joe Mantegna (the other lead in the movie) is in my opinion absolutely great, Crouse gives a half-dead performance, wooden and surreally uninspired, especially when one considers that she was acting (?) a part in a solid story. Were it not for her terrible performance this movie would be elevated into whole new heights.

Some people thought that the dialogue was problematic, but in my view it's exactly the bizzarity of the dialogue that makes the "House of Games" all the more special. The dialogues are unique in the way things are being said and not in what is being said.

But otherwise, this is a great film, also in a historical way, since it provided a cue for many scriptwriters since, with maybe better results but this doesn't diminish this film's importance.

Well worth its reputation and the time you'll invest in watching it.

....or, "The Large Con consists of a series of Small Cons put in an 'attractive' order".

....or, "Everybody's got a little bit of small con in them. Well, some folks have larger cons..."

I saw this movie again and, despite my distaste for certain aspects of the Mamet approach (He wishes actors to read the dialog as written, without emoting too much. The emoting is somehow brought across in the words. In my opinion sometimes the dialog comes off as more staccato than true life, but who am I? Mamet is the world renown author/director, here. I am simply a hack reviewer--but I digress)...this, I think, is a very cool movie with a lot going for it. The chemistry with Crouse and Mantegna is subtly packaged...the cool psychologist becomes child like to the swaggering, but one step from being oily, con-man. She wanted so much to believe that she was being allowed in a world of secrets, privy to only a few, so she trusted this guy to Father her thru this mesh of crosses and double-crossings.

Those moments with the con-artist to her were romantic, exciting, hell, downright sexy and she was feeling more alive than the sterile clinical environment offered to her as a psychologist. Until, that is, The Big Tell gave her a kick in her nether regions.

What makes the movie a surreal experience is that on one level anyone who is in movie making and story telling (or sometimes health services like psychiatry/psychology) is some what of a con artist that we all surrender to one way or another. And we in the audience usually have to remind ourselves to Look Out for The Tell...do you see where I'm going with this? Good. Remember then. And see this movie. It's a good one.

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.

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!

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.

All discussion of Mamet's art aside, I recommend this film to female audiences. Lindsay Crouse's performance has been deservedly positively reviewed above, but what hasn't yet been mentioned is how well she protrays a woman who knows her place and therefore dares to venture beyond it. The world of con men is much more dangerous, exciting, and even self-admitted than the cons of nurture that women in our society are routinely limited to, at least as this film attests. Mike offers Dr. Ford to take her into a new thing. He catches her blushing. This is one of the most genuine and yet instructive seduction scenes I've ever watched. Artistic value aside, House of Games is a "fun" film for all those women out there who think they are above being conned by men. The climax and denouement first satisfy and then edify--to know a con is to be one. The final scene of Dr. Ford in the restaurant is painfully accurate.

The thing about House Of Games is that you're sure its lame until the last 30 minutes or so and after you've finished watching it, you still can't decide if you like it or not. Regardless, it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings.

The horrible acting (especially from Mamet's then-wife Linsay Crouse) and stiff dialogue, along with the ill-advised lighting homage to film noir almost play into the "con" Mamet is playing on the viewer. Still, that doesn't make it *enjoyable* to watch.

The theme of pairing pyschology with the con artist is loaded with potential. However, it is not explored enough. The scenes between the doctor and her patient are Ed Wood bad. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad photography and, most of all, empty. Similarly, the scenes with Maria, the older shrink professor, are too obvious. The "Freudian slips" are just amateurish. There is no excuse for this, as these scenes can't be explained away by being ensconsed in the world of confidence games, where neither party has their guard down and may be trying to lead the other on. For more on this, read Mike Stone's review below.

Overall, while the plot becomes clever in an unconventional way, there was way too much raw potential that went unrealized. The cons are somewhat obvious and lame. We know the "big con" before Maggie does and what she does from there isn't clever, but instead relies on the character development, which was pretty much nil up to this point. Mamet crowbars the subtle aspects of her character in there. Subtle as a flying mallet. And yet, he doesn't want to spend too much time on them (wisely) so he relies on singular scenes with the mental patient or her mentor Maggie and all I can say is these scenes are woefully lacking in all aspects. Good scene writing escaped Mamet in this movie. Not to mention any dialogue that rises above *painfully* bad.

The script, in this sense, is its own worst enemy. The basic structure is fine, but the scene-to-scene execution is pitiful. Couple that with bad acting and (at times) cheesy cinematography and it's just too bad that a solid idea was so underdeveloped.

I wish Mamet had done two things: (1) Revised the script a number of times and made it far better and (2) Let someone else direct it. He adapted the scrpit for The Verdict which was, in my opinion, a fine job of screenwriting. However, Sidney Lumet's direction and Newman's acting sent it over the top. I truly wish Lumet had directed this.