House of Games (1987) User Reviews

Great story. Acting style is a big turn off

[Lord_of_the_Things · 7/10 · 5 May 2020]

Found the story very engaging and although I saw some of the twists coming, there were enough surprises to keep my attention.

One thing I can not seem to get past is the acting. Apparently this is something that is part of Mamet's style but it just comes across as awful. A more orthodox approach to the performances would have elevated this film from good to great.

Not Insulting

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 29 October 2002]

Spoilers. In his essay on "compensation," which we would nowadays call "immanent justice," (or maybe "karma") Emerson wrote: "Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass." After participating in a theft and murder, Lindsay Crouse returns to her office and the first thing she does is close all the blinds, as if her conscience, indeed the conscience of the whole world, is outside, staring in at her.

This is a fairly intelligent movie, especially considering that it's the first outing as director for David Mamet. He handles the camera quite well. Nothing looks stagy. And he knows when to let the shot linger on the door to "The House of Games" as it swings very slowly closed after Crouse enters for the first time, and we get to hear the latch click shut behind her. The screen is filled with a huge sturdy doorknob and lock, and a somewhat ragged sign reading simply "Games."

It's a story of the long con, meaning a thoroughly planned and time-consuming scenario played for big stakes, like "The Sting". The whole plot, involving a dozen people, is orchestrated down to the smallest move and the placement of props by Joe Montegna and the mark is Crouse, although she doesn't discover this until the end, and then only by accident. Yes, some of the dialog sounds as if it's being read from cue cards, but I take this to be deliberate stylization. Crouse and Montegna have shown in other works that they can be as naturalistic as the next performer.

Here, with Mamet's odd script, they take chances. There is a lot of repetition. Character A says, "I'm going to take you somewhere." B says: "You're going to take me somewhere." This goes on mostly between the two leads. There are many instances, still sounding stylized, of speakers interrupting themselves and beginning a new utterance: "I can't believe that -- How did all this get started?" I think rhetoricians call this "anacoluthia" but I wouldn't bet on it. When the narrative requires it, the dialog moves along with considerable verve. The script is to movies what Hemingway's prose was to literature as far as stylization goes, and it works here. (It doesn't always work: vide "Barfly.")

The film gives us a picture of human nature that isn't very pretty. We are all con men, it says. And we are, in a way, although not always illegally. The sociologist Erving Goffman called our everyday con jobs "impression management." Goffman also wrote a fascinating article called "Cooling Out the Mark," a study of how con men quiet the mark down in order to leave him sufficiently satisfied with himself that he doesn't go to the cops or otherwise seek revenge. Montegna does a splendid job of cooling out Crouse: "You're going to feel a strong need to confess. Don't do it. You had nothing to do with it. It was all an accident. You're completely innocent." (This just after he's relieved her of "eighty large" and is about to beat it to the airport to skip town.)

Lindsay Crouse, as I say, is the mark, but she's hardly an innocent bystander. She has written a best seller, "Driven", about compulsive behavior, but she smokes a lot and steals things and is drawn to the world the con people inhabit. As a psychiatrist, however, she has learned to "forgive herself" (how do you do that?) and after shooting her exploiter full of numerous holes, she takes a vacation, comes back, and with tan and a big smile boosts a gold lighter out of the purse of a woman sitting next to her in a restaurant.

There is so much unwatchable garbage on the screen these days that when something comes along that doesn't insult your intelligence, like this movie, I feel myself heaving a sigh of relief. Definitely worth watching.

Riveting, disturbing... near-flawless psychological suspense

[cathyyoung1 · 8/10 · 15 May 2000]

If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.

"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.

The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).

"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.

unbelievable!

[charlie-mcadams · 6 August 2003]

SPOILERS As another poster here has written , maybe I too have seen too many "con" movies and wasn't one bit surprised by the "big con" in this movie. I was however completely bowled over by the writers insistence that the viewer must be incredibly dim to believe that the psychiatrist was so utterly naive and easily manipulated.

A lot of things in this movie didn't make sense to me. For instance , we are supposed to believe that these con men are on the top of their game , true professionals , she should also have to believe this. I would expect this to be intrinsic to the plot , she must be completely taken in by them. However she "believes" , that the guy used a loaded water pistol , she "believes" that the guy they try to sting is an undercover cop but also was stupid enough to talk loudly on his walkie talkie , one door away from the bad guys .... AND leave the door open while doing so , finally she "believes" that they just left 80,000 dollars in cash behind (at a murder scene)!

Having said all that maybe they are THAT stupid , I mean the day after conning her , they decide to meet up and split the money between them ..... what venue do they choose? a secluded motel? a hotel room ? someones house/apartment? Nope , why not split the cash in a bar , one which she has visited before. She manages to (surprisingly easily) sneak in a back door and back out again , without being seen , but in between this overhear a load of criminals talking loudly about their latest scam.

Believable?

There are just too many holes in this movie , the big con was so obvious it was embarrassing.... from little questions like " would a guy at a poker game really be expected to take a check off of someone only ONE other person knew" to the eternal "why do people in movies always leave their car keys in their car " (for their get-away from the murder scene).

Am I missing something here , for people to say this was an intriguing plot makes me feel slightly uneasy!

Disappointing third act (possible spoiler alert)

[scottythefield · 6/10 · 6 November 2003]

The first 2/3 of "House of Games" is really enjoyable, as Lindsay Crouse's psychiatrist character is engulfed into the world of professional con artists. Dr. Ford's insights into human behaviour and motivations give her a giddy thrill in watching a "mark" succumb, and by giving us a peek behind the scenes, writer/director David Mamet allows us to get drawn in right along with her. In fact, our knowledge soon overtakes Dr. Ford's, when it becomes apparent that she herself has unknowingly become the patsy in a much bigger con-within-a-con. Nothing wrong with that, except that Mamet clearly expects us to be "surprised" by this revelation, long after it's blatantly obvious to everyone except the doc. At this point, she suddenly looks extremely gullible and slow-witted, our empathy with her is lost, and no amount of enjoyably hard-boiled Mamet dialogue can redeem the rest of the movie. (Incidentally, the strangely robotic performance from the usually compelling Lindsay Crouse, the former Mrs. Mamet, should be compared to the even-stiffer Rebecca Pigeon, the PRESENT Mrs. Mamet, in 1997's not-dissimilar "Spanish Prisoner". Maybe Mamet just can't direct women who are his wives?)

United States of Kiss My Ass

[ImpQueen · 9/10 · 5 May 2004]

`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10

Predictable and Disappointing

[kenjha · 6/10 · 24 August 2008]

A renowned therapist is charmed by a confidence man and soon finds herself drawn into a deadly web that threatens her reputation. A big problem is the central character, a supposedly smart doctor who makes bone-headed decisions. The lackluster performance of Crouse (then Mrs. Mamet) doesn't help. Mantegna is fine as the con man. In his directorial debut, Mamet creates an appropriately dark atmosphere. Ironically, the script by this Pulitzer Prize winning writer is disappointing. The plot has too many holes and the twists and turns can be seen from a mile away. The story is too contrived and ultimately unsatisfying.

The Con Never Ends In "House Of Games"

[jhclues · 10/10 · 15 August 2000]

David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.

Entertaining Noirish Thriller

[Armin_Nikkhah_Shirazi · 7/10 · 1 February 2022]

David Mamet's directorial debut features his trademark crisp dialogue, complex characters and intriguing story line. The basic idea of someone who wants to learn about the world of con men only to become entangled to get more than they bargained for is innovative.

On the negative side, while the dialogue itself is first-rate, the delivery by several of the actors and especially the Psychiatrist struck me as unnatural and even wooden. I am not sure if this was an intended effect, but it took me out of the story several times.

In my view, the strongest part of the movie was the first half, where we are still introduced to how the con men work. The trouble is that once we are exposed to a few unexpected twists, everything becomes suspect and we begin to expect the unexpected. For instance, there was a scene where Psychiatrist, a medical doctor, fails to tend to man who was shot, and that made me immediately suspicious (at the meta story-telling level). As a result, I was able to predict the twists later in the movie and it became almost a little disappointing (though, to be fair, there was still an unexpected twist in the final scene).

I find this to be an interesting problem which I cannot recall that any previous movie brought to my attention: if a movie is designed to be "twisty", and you as the storyteller are especially successful at delivering the first few, how do you keep the unexpected still unexpected for the remainder?

This film did not succeed at solving this particular problem, but it is a hard one, and the movie is still quite good and worth a watch.

Treat yourself to this deep movie about a strong woman amongstrong men.

[SquirePM · 10/10 · 25 May 1999]

House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.

Could Have Been Better

[doubl3 · 6/10 · 16 April 2020]

The movie was overall entertaining, but it had some issues holding it back. I assume the characters talking very unnaturally (about like robots) was an intentional style choice, but it came off the same as very bad acting would. In other words, they may have been doing it intentionally, but it still sounded like bad acting would sound. And that also made one of the biggest supposed twists so obviously coming that it was too unbelievable that it could have happened. Basically the way of speaking and lack of emotion after some things happened made it obvious what was going on. I saw everything coming other than one twist of sorts.

House of Games

[Oliver-50 · 8/10 · 10 January 2005]

Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of ****

Good but stagy, improbably but entertaining

[SanTropez_Couch · 7/10 · 1 March 2003]

Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

***

Tries to be stylish, ends up stilted. You can almost see the strings

[joachimokeefe · 4/10 · 9 August 2008]

The plot of 'House of Games' is the strongest thing about it: a successful author and psychologist is conned by a gang of grifters, but in discovering the wicked part of herself that enjoys the thrill of what they do, she finally gets her revenge. That's about the pitch: but someone has to take responsibility for it coming across as being acted by puppets. It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time. She's supposed to go from uptight, cool, controlled professional to calculating, wicked fast lady having fun, as shown by the change from beige trouser suit (which she seems to wear for three days straight, including underwear) to floppy floral sundress. But everyone seems to be speaking their lines the same clipped, precise way; I imagine Mamet wanting to make sure not a syllable of his scintillating script got missed. The effect is unsettling and spoils the atmosphere of mystery and suspense he is presumably trying to create. At times 'House of Games' loses any connection to how human beings actually behave or talk, and becomes just a mechanism to spin out the plot. The clunky vibes'n'oboe faux-jazz soundtrack doesn't help either. The ultimate result is that the only entertainment to be had is in guessing the outcome, and the sooner you do that the sooner you will get bored with the robotic, two-dimensional performances. And they smoke too much!!!

A rare gem

[Rob Paul · 2 July 1999]

I knew nothing about this movie when I saw it on tv many years ago and had never seen 'The Sting' before seeing this. It's best to enjoy these type of movies without any prior knowledge, because if you knew anything about it before hand, you could work out the plot after 10 minutes. A movie that seems a straight forward thriller, but actually deals more with the desire to explore one's darker side. Mamet maybe made some of the plot twists seem a tad to obvious and doesn't quite manage to shake of a 'tv' approach, but that doesn't matter because Joe Mantegna gives a superb performance that lifts the other cast members above tv standard.

One of David Mamet's better movie efforts (like Untouchables, Spanish Prisoner and Glengarry Glen Ross), it's best knowing nothing about this movie before seeing it.

8/10.

Regarding some idiots reviewing this brilliant film

[akademic78 · 7/10 · 4 September 2015]

(SPOILER FREE) Seen a couple reviews here, specifically one where the author claims "dreadful acting". Funnily enough, the same guys gave "QoS" a higher rating than Scorcese's "Casino". Couldn't resist but to put my two cents in, while laughing at clueless wannabe-critics like this.

This is one of Mamet's best. It's not for kids with ADD, much like the guy who claimed "dreadful acting". It's a relatively slow-paced, compact, but short and sweet con movie. Mamet's writing is delivered by a cast that understands very well what they're in for - a con movie.

Much like the protagonist, the viewer should focus on small psychological details - the way the characters speak, move, act, blink. All the clues are there, and yes, although it's somewhat predictable, as with any Mamet's film, the beauty comes from the writing. It's the little nuances with which he directs his cast that make the writing shine.

Don't listen to wannabe-critics, they're clueless. This is a well-written and well-acted film.

A Journey to the Dark Side

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 23 October 2016]

In Seattle, Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a successful psychiatrist and writer of a best-seller. When her client Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein) tells that he owes US$ 25,000 to the gambler Mike (Joe Mantegna), he threatens to commit suicide with a gun. Billy also tells that Mike will kill him anyway and she is not helping him. Margaret feels powerless but she promises to help him if he delivers his pistol to her. Margaret goes to the House of the Games, a place where gamblers play pool in the saloon and poker in the rear, and she meets the cynical con man Mike. He tells that Billy owes him only US$ 800 and he would forget the debt if she helps him in a poker game. Margaret observes a player but she finds in the end that it was a scheme of Mike and his friends to take money from her. On the next morning, Margaret visits a patient and she feels that she cannot help her. Her friend and adviser Dr. Maria Littauer (Lilia Skala) suggests that she should give a break in her career and write another book. Margaret seeks out Mike and asks to see how he operates since she wants to study the confidence games to write a book. He agrees and Margaret begins her journey to her dark side.

"House of the Games" is the directorial debut of the writer David Mamet with an intelligent thriller. The story of a psychiatrist that feels powerless to help her patients and befriends the con man Mike and his friends to write a new book is a powerful characters study. Mike' scheme is predictable but the plot keeps the attention of the viewer until the last scene. In addition, the cinematography is top-notch. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Jogo de Emoções" ("The Game of Emotions")

You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention.

[film-critic · 6/10 · 27 November 2005]

When I first began House of Games, I hated it. I hated the language, I hated the characters, I hated the tone, but then something changed. Mamet finally took control of this film and pulled the audience in by tricking all of us into thinking this was a film about a young love and the darkness of the world, when instead it was all about something deeper. If you go into this film expecting the classic 1980s cliché of woman meets man, man is a criminal, woman changes man thus leading to a sloppy wet ending, you will be utterly disappointed. This structure is initially how I envisioned this film, and with the first half an hour filmed the way it was, there was no doubt in my mind that I had been suckered into just another average crime film. Then, midway through the picture, the tones and themes dramatically change. I didn't even see it coming, but when you least expect it, like the "con" performed in this film, it will blindside you quicker than a deer on the highway. House of Games leaves you with this perfect example of just how dark David Mamet is.

This is a film that most will either hate or love. The reason that I say this is because the language of the film is extremely "stagey". Before this film, David Mamet had found his success with his plays. The power of his characters, the unjustness of his plots, and the vile of his villains were key elements to packing his plays full of patrons. In House of Games he attempts to bring the stage to the screen without any changes. You can literally hear the beats between the characters when they are talking. The language that they use feel and sound as if they are acting in front of a live audience, not just for the camera. This makes the words a bit stale at times. You can visually see this film as a play because of the language that is used. Again, some will hate this about the film, while others will see it as nothing short of classic Mamet. For me, I hated it at first, but as the film developed, I began to see the logic behind it. The quickness of the conversations between the characters gave more definition to the "con" that they were trying to perform. I always felt as if they were quickly getting something by me. About the middle of the film, I began listening to every word said afraid that I would miss a key element that would unravel this tight plot. I began waiting for scenes where Margaret (Crouse) would stumble on her words, change the meaning, thus allowing us to develop the evil that was within her. Slowly and steadily this "stagey" language worked for me, and it gave just a small addition to the characters.

For anyone that has ever seen most of Mamet's film versions (and some of his stage performances) you will notice that he is notorious for using the same characters throughout. I like this quite a bit. Christopher Guest uses the same technique. While I have talked to some that think that it only shows the repetition of his originality, I think that it gives Mamet definition and substance. I loved watching this early film of Mamet's and see a young William H. Macy in a scene and his use of my favorite J.T. Walsh. It is fun to watch these actors grow in Mamet's films. Many of them you can see in State & Main and Heist. Does that mean that they are necessarily good actors then? I don't think so. While I liked the continual use of the same characters, some (more than others), have trouble with the characters. For example, in House of Games, it was obvious that Lindsay Crouse did not have control over her character. She seemed fake in her scenes, and did not counter will with Mantegna (who gave a great performance). She seemed on a different beat compared to the others in this film, and I think it hurt House of Games somewhat. She wasn't the strongest actress that Mamet could have chosen.

While I loved the "con" throughout the film, I did feel as if the ending was a bit on the weak side. Without giving it away, it started to feel used before it was over. I knew deep within me where it was going, but I kept waiting for the big "hurrah", but alas, there wasn't any. That is where Mamet missed his mark. The ending needed to be stronger. I loved watching this simple woman transform into evil and the entire themes that went along with that, but I needed more. I loved the anti-romantic notion of this film, but I needed more. I loved the character interactions in this film, but I needed more. That was exactly how I felt about this film. I loved House of Games, but I needed more. Mamet ended the film without giving us closure, and while the rest of the film was exciting to watch, this ending just left me soured.

Overall, I loved it, but I don't think that I could watch it again. Mamet is one of the greatest writers of our generation providing us with some very "cult" anti-Hollywood cinema, but this first film was a rough-cut. It was smart, intelligent, and overall a stage version of his play onto film. A stronger transition was needed from stage to screen. The characters were somewhat developed and the plot was sensational. The darkness by the end of the film caught me unprepared. I liked this film, but a second viewing is not in my future. I love David Mamet's work and cannot wait to submerge myself into more of his films later.

Grade: *** out of *****

For fans of the psychologically gripping, it doesn't get any better then this.

[triple8 · 10/10 · 22 January 2005]

House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.

I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.

Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.

There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....

House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.

In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie.

Terrible actors, interesting plot

[gmsmith-4 · 6/10 · 17 December 2020]

To say the acting in this was B-grade would be a huge complement. It's not even close. But if you take it as a story, it has a few holes, is a bit predictable, but is ultimately a really well telled tale. It's worth watching for the interesting story, even if the acting isn't exactly great.

House of Mamet

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 1 August 2019]

Putting your wife in the lead role is a bit of risk. Something David Mamet was willing to do. But he had her opposite well taken care of. So while this is very predictable to a certain point, it is played with such a finesse you just have to love it.

It really is quite something to experience. And while as I already stated you know where it is heading, it still has some surprises left for the viewer. At least one and I really didn't see that coming. So there is the thriller aspect of it all but also the quality - writing, acting, composition and framing. Depending on what things you care about more, you'll find this better or worse than I have rated it.

Smart, but stilted

[Vidfan · 6/10 · 12 May 2015]

I love a good con movie. From "Harry In Your Pocket" to "The Sting", and everything in between, there's satisfaction and pleasure in watching the story unfold and come together like puzzle pieces. So I'm willing to overlook a lot to enjoy a good con.

"House of Games" isn't a bad movie. In fact, in the right hands, it could have been brilliant. But poor casting choices and what seems to be an iron-fisted direction style have doomed this film to mediocrity.

Director and writer David Mamet seems to have been intent on controlling every moment with an almost obsessive focus. The actors seem to struggle to break free and act. Yet they seem reined in as if every move, every word and action were carefully (and poorly) choreographed.

The script, like the direction, is wooden and inflexible, rendering a dichotomy throughout as if it was written for the stage, not for a camera. It's technically correct, but artistically binding. As a result, the actors struggle to sound realistic and natural, and it comes across as forced.

In the lead role, Lindsay Crouse is stiff and amateurish. Her character never really develops from the cool and uptight physician to the loose and morally reckless criminal that she is supposed to become. Her lines are delivered like a recitation, as if she is struggling to get each syllable correct. I'm not sure if it's her acting or Mamet's directing. Either way, it can be painful to watch at times.

The rest of the cast strive to overcome Mamet's direction, and for the most part, they succeed. Joe Mantegna turns on the charm here and there, and pulls off the affable con man with as much panache as he's allowed.

The story is great, and had the cast been allowed to run with it, the movie might have been a real gem. The subtle nuances that could have given the film depth were all but ignored, sub-plots went nowhere, and characters that should have been more developed came across two-dimensional.

As I said, I'm willing to forgive a lot for art's sake, and this movie required a lot of forgiveness. But it did provide a couple of hours of entertainment. It kept me engrossed and involved, and for that I gave it a 6 out of 10 stars.

A con movie with a darker edge than "The Sting"

[steiner-sam · 8/10 · 5 November 2021]

It's a film noir con movie with a much darker edge than "The Sting." It's set in the 1980s in a large U. S. city.

Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is an uptight, chain-smoking Freudian psychiatrist who doubts her ability to help people despite having a best-selling book on obsessive behavior. One day a gambling-addicted client, Billy (Steven Goldstein), threatens to kill himself with a gun in her office because of a $25,000 debt he owes Mike Mancuso (Joe Mantegna). She talks Billy down and promises to help him. She confronts Mike at the House of Games, a hole-in-wall gambling joint in a seedy part of town.

She is intrigued by Mike and agrees to help him in a con in a poker game. She is almost conned herself but discovers it before losing her money. She asks to learn more about the confidence game world and gets sucked into a much larger con with fatal consequences. By the end of the movie, Margaret is a much different person that has learned a lot about herself.

If you like film noir, this is a great movie. How Margaret gets sucked into the con is over the top, but if the viewer goes along with that, the plot twists and turns are fascinating. The only good person left at the film's end is Margaret's mentor, Dr. Littauer (Lilia Skala).

Something to assert yourself.

[sharky_55 · 6/10 · 21 November 2015]

Mamet should be relieved that his directorial debut in House of Games was way back in 87, because it would probably get eaten alive today. When the film-maker/screenwriter in his case waves the hand over the audience and reveals the big con, the reaction is almost always surprise, because usually the narrative has been constructed competently and subtly enough that it is not entirely predictable. But there is a secondary effect, where the plot details that have culminated into this big reveal are rendered hazy or allowed to become somewhat illogical because well, it was all a ruse. HoG doesn't fall entirely into this trap like say, The Usual Suspects, but remains uninspiring.

Margaret Ford is a successful and best-selling psychiatrist, and seems to truly care about her patients despite the spotlight. In the opening, a stranger recognises her face beneath her sunglasses, a little clue that suggests that she is not nearly as covert as she thinks she is. When she confronts a loan-shark in a shady bar, there is nothing but good intentions, and she reads him from the start. The trouble is, he reads her better. Mike (Joe Mantegna) is best performer of the film in a literal sense; he is smooth talking, but could appear so even without explaining the gears and cogs of the con world. They face each other only after a few glances, and he so overpoweringly seduces her into his world. Later, as he demonstrates a con but cannot scam a genuine well-meaning man, the illusion is complete - and we too, believe this.

Mamet's story would completely fall apart if it weren't for these initial deduction from Margaret as she spot the water gun scam - the audience needs to believe that she is a good judge of character, and also that they themselves trust Margaret's judgement. The closeup and reaction shots of the ring and the fake gun seem objective in their deceit and in unveiling her keen eye. In the hotel room, as she glances over at Mike, he replies back with the confidence and control that has been instilled into her, and we are so assured. Later, we are placed in her unknowing shoes, full of fear and paranoia, and the lighting characterises this, plunging her figure in complete darkness as she overhears snippets of a police sting. There is a jump scare, which is the only one and carefully placed, which signals her growing anxiety, which is brilliantly combined with a harmless point of the finger and the ever ringing school bell.

It is unfortunate that Crouse cannot match a plot and supporting actor of such promising calibre. Her performance is stilted, and cannot produce the necessary subtext, so we are treated to mounds of exposition from the elderly companion who acts as some sort of psychiatrist for Margaret herself. Her delivery is mostly mechanical, only seldom smiles or laughs or shows any signs of affection as she is seduced, and in the climax, she cannot conjure enough rage although she has been clearly wronged. Maybe Mamet, her at the time husband, might have found Crouse attractive and hypnotic and appropriate to step into the femme fatale role, but there is barely a hint of this person in the film. And so his dialogue, which is sometimes twice as long as necessary as per theatre, which is brash and direct, seems to often bounce off a mannequin that is halfway glance at the script instructions (in parentheses such as these - prompting her to deliver her dialogue with resignation, with wonder, with irritation) but cannot fulfill them anyway. At times Mamet shows his lack of directing experience and signals that he originates from the stage; characters will stand up or aside to have a whispered private conversation, yet the other parties are conspicuous and clearly in the frame. Such a thing would flow with ease in a play, but here it becomes stilted, and the atmosphere and tension that Mamet has no doubt thought of while writing the script evaporates.

The fact that this film has been lauded by critics actually flabbergasts me !!!!

[avik-basu1889 · 2/10 · 2 April 2015]

I had generally heard positive remarks about House of Cards by David Mamet. So i decided to watch with relatively high expectations. But not only did the film not meet my expectations, I ended up completely loathing it. I still can't begin to understand how this film can have so much critical acclaim. Except the cinematography, not a single thing works.

It is clear that Mamet is a playwright as the dialogues sound completely lifted from his plays. The lines are so unrealistic and so not engaging, that I found myself laughing at them. The plot is extremely weak. The first con may fool you, but everything that follows is predictable with a capital P. A con movie's strength lies in its ability to keep the viewer guessing and then fooling the viewer. Not only did I not get fooled, but even someone who is not paying attention will be able to predict the "big" con that takes place at the end. The storyline is essential in a con-movie,and this film showed me why due its weakness.

Let's now come to the acting which I believe is the weakest thing in the film. Joe Mantegna is the only one in the whole film who is believable and whose charisma works to some extent. Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford delivers one of the most atrocious, mechanical, lifeless performances I have ever seen. You don't have to like or dislike the protagonist, but you have to connect with him/her. To say that I didn't connect with her character will be an enormous understatement. In this film her line delivery actually makes Kristen Stewart's performances in the Twilight films look Oscar- worthy. I have seen some comments on this site defending Crouse's performance by saying that her wall- like performance is justified because she is playing the role of a person who is reserved, introverted and has always lived within restrictions. I completely disagree with that argument. Just because you are reserved, doesn't mean you have to be completely lifeless and be a human wall. The prime example to defend my case will be the character of Gerd Wiesler played by Ulrich Mühe in The Lives of Others. Wiesler was also a serious, reserved character who had been made so by incidents in his past. But I loved Ulrich Mühe's performance as he still remained believable and intense. He spoke and behaved like a normal shy,introverted person. You don't have to speak like a robot with no expressions and have the acting range of a wall to convey the fact that the character is uptight. Even William H Macy's guest appearance disappointed me and I like Macy's acting in everything else. Mind you, the silly nature of the lines that the actors have to say don't make their jobs any easier to conjure even the slightest bit of realism. This over the top dialogues and wooden acting might be Mamet's style and it might work in his plays, but for me it doesn't work at all in a film.

The cinematography works to some extent. I liked the use of the light and the shadows which created a noir-like effect.

So apart from the cinematography and Mantegna's performance, nothing in this film works. I will never be able to comprehend how Roger Ebert thought this film was good enough to find a place in his list of Great Movies.