House of Games | | Cast : | Lindsay Crouse, Joe Mantegna | | Director : | David Mamet | | Studio : | MGM/UA Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | October 11, 1987 | | DVD Released Date : | December 19, 2000 | | Language : | Unknown (Dubbed), English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), Spanish (Dubbed) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | April 06, 2005 | | Summary | House of Games: another and evil purpose | Content
 | Margaret Ford is cool, detached, removed-an observer-traits that are the basis for her success as a psychologist and writer of well-paying pop-psychology. One of her patients, a gambler, is in debt to a fellow gambler and hustler named Mike. Confident in her powers to persuade others to act contrary to their immediate best interests, Margaret offers to talk to Mike. It is, of course, an act of hubris, an act of self-appraisal wanting correction--an act of pride inviting a fall. So that night, she makes her way to the House of Games, a seedy little bar in a dark, desolate corner of Seattle where Mike and his crew gather to play cards in a dark still--in an atmosphere resembling her own office. Mike is cool, detached, removed--an observer--traits that are the basis for his success as a gambler and con man. He makes a rather extraordinary offer: he will tear up the IOU's if Margaret will help him in the execution of his present hustle. Mike talks close, talks in a low knowing whisper. She's either in or she isn't. Then he gives her a glimpse of his method--he shows her how he watches for "tells"--little tics, twitches and hiccups, as it were, in the body language of his victim-unconscious signaling of what someone is thinking, what someone knows, what some had meant to hide from others. It must seem frighteningly familiar to a psychologist--but so very intriguing when applied to another and evil purpose. She accepts; and so begins a series of twists and turns that oblige you to wonder, till the very end, at which point the con actually began.
The language of this film is characteristic of Mamet at his best. It is highly stylized, an endless succession of ellipses, faints, and echos. Every statement seems suspect, delivered in heavy quotes. There may only be a single additional second between sentences, but it seems so long, so otherworldly. Outwardly ordinary-looking statements seem busy with other meaning, with mystery and possible misdirection. It is a language befitting both psychologist and con man--observers who ultimately seek control over others, though admittedly for very different ends. But as the film gradually unfolds, you may find yourself laboring to discriminate between a con man who manipulates and controls and a psychologist who steers and directs. In the end, they only succeed in conning themselves, having forgotten that they are dealing with human beings who, possessed with powers of reason tempered and bent by emotions, often skid, slip and spin down unexpected, unintended and sometimes unlovely cul-de sacs. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 19, 2005 | | Summary | Great movie, minor complaints | Content
| This review contains spoilers.
I wasn't aware of this movie when it was released and heard of it only recently because I got to know and like the work of actress Lindsay Crouse in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Hack."
The movie got high marks from the IMDb crowd and on Amazon.com, but I've been burned that way many times so expected to be disappointed by "House of Games," too.
I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie far above average. I'd put it in the top 10 percent of all the movies I've seen.
I'm so glad David Mamet decided to make this movie with his wife in the lead and his friend Joe Montegna playing Mike. Both actors are perfectly cast.
That said, I do have three minor quibbles with the movie. (Spoilers coming.) First, it seemed obvious to me that Lindsay's character was being conned when the briefcase containing $80,000 went missing and Lindsay offered to reimburse the con men. Concomitantly, it didn't make sense that Lindsay's character wouldn't catch on at that point that she was being conned.
Later in the movie, Lindsay visits the bar where the con men hang out. She enters late at night through the back door, which was all too conveniently unlocked.
Lastly, when Lindsay and Joe have their final confrontation they are in the baggage handling area of a large airport. And no one else is around. Not even close enough, apparently, to hear six gunshots.
But these are small complaints compared to the overall quality of the movie. "House of Games" is a gem. |
| Rating | | | Date | August 25, 2004 | | Summary | Definitely Worth Seeing. | Content
| David Mamet's directorial debut manages to impress, even with less than perfect execution. The talented writer delivers a compelling story which handily makes up for the few awkward points of strained acting or poorly executed dialogue. At times this movie seems predictable, and yet throughout, Mamet manages to exploit that predictability and turn it upside down. When you watch this movie, you find yourself equally nonchalant and fascinated. Joe Mantegna does a good job as the cool con-man, and delivers a performance both more realistic and more comfortable than the protagonist, played by Mamet's then wife Lindsay Crouse. Although Crouse does manage to pull off several critical scenes well--particularly the last scene, which is one of the best in the movie. In House of Games, like in so much of Mamet's work, we really see the characters develop: they resist and flounder, but they grow. So many movies these days fail to achieve that simple, yet crucial, development of character. This is definitely worth seeing. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 16, 2004 | | Summary | "Trust no one" | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 16, 2004 | | Summary | Don't believe these reviews! | Content
| 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! |
|
