House of Games

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 ****

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.

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.

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 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.