House of Games

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")

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.

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.

I've viewed this film four times and at each viewing my interest was piqued a little more and I appreciated the film a little more. Granted the stylized approach is a little off-putting at first, but on repeated viewings, it becomes appropriate in the context of the film. Lindsay Crouse,(Mamet's wife at the time), plays a psychiatrist who methodically approaches her treatment of her patients, is a very closed person, and seemingly unfulfilled; hence, her interest and eventual immersion into the activities happening in the House of Games. Her almost robotic reading of the lines seems to fit her screen personality. She is at first curious and then becomes obsessed with Joe Mantegna and his way of life. As we will see, she plays right into his hands, and so do we. I won't go into detail about the story and it's strengths since it has been said better in previous reviews on this board. But the big con is on us, the viewers......we think we know what is happening...in fact we think we know several times. WRONG!! The ending will blow you away and if you figured it out, you need to be working the con game. This is a strange, almost erotic movie that will fascinate you, even though it might take a couple a viewings to fully appreciate it.

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.