Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

sharky_55 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.

tomsview I didn't know David Mamet's name before I saw this movie, but since then I have sought out everything I could find. However, nothing ever delivered the surprise of seeing "House of Games" for the first time. I have to admit, this film got me in completely and I didn't see the tricks coming until they happened – I got my money's worth.Briefly, without giving too much away, the story is about Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), a psychologist and best-selling author who becomes involved with Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic gambler and con artist. Although she seems a fairly grounded person she becomes intrigued with his lifestyle. Before the surprise ending, as Mike says, she learned things about herself that she would rather not know. As Margaret takes a walk on the wild side, the landscape changes from the clean architecture of her very ordered, sophisticated and academic environment to the rain-slicked, neon-lit mean streets of Mike's world.The unusual rhythms of the dialogue, which often sound overly formal or precise, add to the off-centre feeling of the film. Now I realise that those speech patterns are a key part of Mamet's art and are even more pronounced in a film such as "The Spanish Prisoner", but the first time you encounter it, you are struck by it's strangeness. If the dialogue reminds me of any non-Mamet film it is Clifford Odet's script for "Sweet Smell of Success". On that film, when the director was worried that Odet's dialogue would sound stagy or exaggerated, Odets told him, 'Play it real fast. Play it on the run and it will work just fine'. I think the effectiveness of Mamet's dialogue is all in the playing as well. The theme of 'don't believe everything you see' popped up in other Mamet films following "House of Games" including the unsettling "Homicide" and the offbeat "The Spanish Prisoner". However, by the time he got around to "Heist", I think he had gone to the well once too often; the surprises there seemed a little too trite.But, "House of Games" is unique. It's as clever as "The Sting", but with a harder edge. It's a film you can watch again and again and always find another aspect to enjoy.

higherall7 No use pretending there aren't some great lines in this Mamet masterpiece. There are holes in the story, sure, and I'll get to those later. But for those of you wondering how you transfer a work of literature from the stage to the film set, this makes for a wonderful study. You may have noticed how some techniques do not transfer from the stage to film set easily, if at all, but that's partly what makes this film so fascinating. It's a play on roles and their traps and freedoms.Margaret Ford is an intriguing character; educated to the point of embodying a robotic decorum, her faintly masculine persona as an educator is absorbing to watch. Her success as a psychologist and an author should bring her a sense of inner peace and satisfaction, but there is something missing from the equation.The fact is that Margaret is intelligent enough to know that she is not really helping people, only playing a role of elevated status in the social order. A role she has worked hard and studied hard to win. But now that she is secured in her success she has doubts about its true validity. She possesses advanced knowledge of a type, but have her educational activities drawn out the best in her or simply made her another cookie cutter personality? Margaret wants to help and it is this desire to truly help that gets her involved in some really rugged business.Enter Mike into the frame. Mike is also an intriguing character; soft-spoken and suave, glib almost to the point of being feminine, he also comes across as a personality conforming to a type of role, that of the shifty con man. He is playing the tough guy, but he's far too articulate to carry that off convincingly.So what's really going on here? What you have in 'House of Games' to my way of thinking, are males playing at being men and a lone female playing at being a female according to definitions that in the end prove as unworkable and unsatisfying as some of Margaret's psychology sessions with her patients. That these roles do the exact opposite of what they are intended to do, i.e., ultimately feminize the male in spite of all his macho posturing and masculinize the female despite her avowed assertion to want to help through expressions of her own compassion is what makes this so thought provoking a piece.Margaret realizes near the end of act one in this film that her intelligence and shrewd observational skills have just barely saved her from being conned out of a substantial portion of her money. At this point, she has demonstrated both Moral and Intellectual authority over these would be predatory Con Men. This is surely enough to warrant a chapter in her next upcoming book.But what does she do? She returns to have another dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight.Why? This is the interesting part and where the hole in the plot leaks like a squirt gun filled with water. Why does she do it? Why does Margaret return to consort with Con Men who have already tried to make her a mark and who undoubtedly will try again should she have any further dealings with them? What is it about her academic environment that is so arid and vacuous that she must at length seek out a criminal for a date? That this is in the end a date movie with a deadly twist is not be denied. It appears to me there should have been a male character or characters in Margaret's academic setting with whom she tries to relate but fails to do so. This would have lent greater credence to her rendezvous with Mike.Yes, Margaret comes back and bares her breast to all the misogynistic intentions and elaborated schemes of this den of thieves she has stumbled upon in her quest to truly help a human being in need.Why does she do it? To feel more like a woman? At the end, she attempts to exact her revenge on Mike using his methods which, it turns out he understands better than she does as he has been applying them most of his adult life.All I can say is I would have rather seen her wearing a wire and regaining both the Moral and Intellectual high ground she demonstrated at the beginning of the film to bookend it here.I think this would have been more interesting than seeing her become both a murderer and a thief. She could have watched Mike being taken away in handcuffs while she fought hard to stifle her tears at the loss of this love of her life. Somewhat like the last scene in 'The Maltese Falcon', only this time with the woman contemplating the stuff that dreams are made of...

Spikeopath House of Games is written and directed by David Mamet. It stars Joe Mantegna, Lindsay Crouse, Ricky Jay, Mike Nussbaum, J.T. Walsh and Lilia Skala. Music is by Alaric Jans and cinematography by Juan Ruiz Anchia.When psychiatrist Margaret Ford (Crouse) confronts con-artist Mike (Mantegna) about a debt one of her suicidal patients owes him, she finds herself enticed into the world of the grifters...David Mamet's first film as a director is the sign of things to come from him, which for his fans is great news, but for his detractors, not so much! House of Games contains all the staginess, clipped dialogue exchanges and aware acting styles that drives his critics up the wall. But for those who can easily slide onto a Mamet web and let him consume them? It's a beaut of a film.You wanna see how a true bad man plies his trade?Misdirection is the order of the day, both in thematics of the plot and in Mamet's telling of the tale. Firstly both Anchia and himself build a city of suspicion through shadows, dank streets and dimly lighted gambling parlours, then to this backdrop comes suspense by way of deceit, complex psychology and a searching examination of human nature and the basis of trust. With us viewers being the fly on the wall to the workings of the con-artist, it makes for compelling viewing anyway, that it's also a crafty thriller with tricks up its sleeve marks it out still further as a film of substance. Even the final act throws up a final question that forces the audience to re-evaluate what conclusion they may have already drawn.Assured performances from the cast seal the deal to make this a must see for Mamet fans. It's playful yet cynical, honest yet devious, and always one step ahead of the game. 8/10