House of Games (1987)

Expected more

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

I might blame this movie on being dated, but I have seen many movies older than this that are far far better.The script is super predictable, minus the last confrontation, which by that time was acted so poorly I just didn't care.There were only 2 good actors in this movie and they were barely in it.The story is the only saving grace, but how it was applied like I said above was predictable and stale. I'd love to see this script idea pulled off with better writers and actors.I don't think the actress changed her vocal tone throughout the whole movie at all.Honestly if you care about your life and the people around you stay clear from this train wreck.My girlfriend and I watched it and laughed but I don't think it was meant to be a comedy. Afterwords she started talking to me in that bland style the leading actress did and I started getting annoyed....I don't know how people can like this , I seriously don't.

David Mamet's electric writing stays at the forefront of this smart, quiet movie about con men and a smart woman for falls in with them. In the meantime, a range of subtexts get discussed including the nature of street smarts versus "intelligence", the acceptance of reality as it is presented including it rules versus creative thinking and forging one's own way as well as gender politics and some other deep thoughts. All of this comes wrapped in a crackling game of cross and double-cross as Joe Matenga's variously-named anti-hero spins an ultimately deadly web. In short, a very good firm for fans of film noir or just those who like a good con job.

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

I first experimented David Mamet with The Spanish Prisoner, and I found it unimpressive. The Mamet pattern is pretty simple and is explained extensively in The House of Games: set up a story in some edgy setting and then build up the audience trust in the proceedings, only to add a manipulative twisty ending.There is one big flaw with that kind of 'ain't I clever' artsy flicks, and it is exactly the same as with whodunits. Either the twist is too abrupt and it really feels like an 'in your face' conclusion, or it is too soft and you are bored because you saw it coming. Either way it's a loser. I reckon some like deceptive story lines, and yes it works once in a while: The Usual Suspects worked... on first viewing, but there is no way to enjoy it again afterwards.What I liked in The House of Games is the soft directing style, it's a bit too much on the artsy stagey side but it is really enjoyable to have a director know how to set up an atmosphere. Then I think most of the movie exists thanks to Joe Mantegna. He is very good and it helps because the lead is a pretty lousy character. And the actress is totally unimpressive: there is expressing a lot with little, and there is little little.I guess the bland introverted hero is a way to summon cheap mystery, but it is not really a way to captivate one's audience. With such a low level of involvement, no wonder you see the twist coming and then you just don't care any more about the main character, then the ending simply doesn't matter.