House of Games

Just gotta' be one of the best of its genre Right up there with "The Grifters"

Simultaneously the most obvious and the most surprising ending/s I could have imagined. This movie would have probably had much more impact back in 1987, but maybe thirty years of film since then has desensitised my tastes, not sure. It almost seems like a B-movie at times, somewhat awkward acting and dialogue, and as I said earlier, some obvious plot points. But it's got its surprises and good moments as well, that's for sure.

This review is an excerpt from my book “Killer B’s: The 237 Best Movies On Video You’ve (Probably) Never Seen,” which is available as an ebook on iBooks. If you enjoy this review, there are 236 more like it in the book (plus a whole lot more). Check it out! HOUSE OF GAMES: “You just talk!” the shrink’s frustrated patient complains. “The whole thing is a con game!” He’s a compulsive gambler; she’s Dr. Margaret Ford (Crouse), top-flight psychiatrist and author of the bestseller “Driven.” She descends into the seedy section of Seattle to the House of Games pool hall, seeking to relieve her patient of his debts and a goon’s death threats. She butts heads with tough guy Mike (Mantegna), who agrees to tear up her patient’s marker—if she helps in a minor card game scam. She’s intrigued by the event, and solicits Mike to be her Virgil as she investigates the underground culture of the con man. He teaches her not only the tricks and techniques of the trade but also the psychological secrets of why they work. But when she becomes inadvertently involved in a big con that goes horribly awry, everything she knows and holds dear—including her sanity—is suddenly in jeopardy. Her only hope is to con the professional confidence men. Who’ll prove the master con artist—and at what cost? Discussion: “What’s more fun than human nature?” Mike snarls cynically. And what makes for better drama than the very same? Mike and Margaret are two sides of one coin: She’s got intelligence and training; he’s got experience and street savvy. She’s mesmerized by his skill and hooked on the gut-level thrills he provides, spicing her immaculately ordered but essentially empty life. He admires her for her guts and sharp eye. But in a movie that openly revels in its multiple levels of deception, can we really expect anything to be what it appears? And when you pit two experts in psychological motivation against one another, the only real bottom line lies in separating the personal from the professional—and hell hath no fury like a woman scammed. Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Mamet’s directorial debut is impressive, and his script even more so; it’s sleight of hand that is anything but slight—a gripping film worthy of superlatives. There is real intelligence here; real power and emotional intensity; real suspense and real surprise; real danger and real drama. Oscar-winning actor Martin Landau, who teaches acting on the side, once told an interviewer words to the effect that acting is not about showing emotion; it’s about showing people struggling to *prevent* themselves from showing emotion. Crouse’s performance is a classic example of this school; her subtle portrayal of an overly-controlled obsessive compulsive slowly succumbing to her own most deeply suppressed desires is itself a masterpiece of self-control. And Mantegna deserved an Oscar for his bitter, obnoxious, edgy Mike. Neither actor has ever given a better performance—or performed in a better script. The surface story, punctuated by Mamet’s trademark precise dialog, gives us a fascinating insight into the age-old con game, revealing such insider secrets as the “tell,” and providing us with a crash course in how to set up and pull off a short con or a big sting. But the film is much more than just a modern noir. One layer beneath this veneer is a Jungian animus fantasy: Margaret secretly yearns for a shadowy, mysterious, fascinating stranger to subdue and possess her; when she finds him, she is drawn deeply into the dark side of her own nature. In addition to the satisfying twists and turns of the plot, the film is grounded in the psychology of its characters. To play the confidence game requires confidence: in one’s knowledge, skills, perceptions and desires—and particularly in one’s self. “House of Games” moves beyond mere mind games to raise unsettling questions about Big Issues like ethics and self-interest, right and wrong and good and evil, sanity and acceptance, and ultimately, of life and death.

I can’t believe some people who criticize this movie for ‘wooden dialogue’ & ‘stiff characters’…..that’s what makes Mamet special in my humble opinion…David Mamets has his own approach - I dig it!! This is a great movie that I’ve been watching off and on for over 20 years….love the twists and turns - well done!!

don't waste money on this

I couldn't even get through half of the movie. The dialogue is atrocious and thus the actors are terrible. I'm sorry I spent the $2.99.

Expertly crafted with powerful performances but the film also features not one likable or redeemable character and an icey ambience. Not really detractions, but makes it easier to admire than really enjoy.

worth the rent

This film is well worth the viewing, if for no other reason than because of Ricky Jay... he's brilliant in this movie! He's a Mamet go-to guy, and this is one of his best performances, because it plays to his strong suit.... pun intended.

This is an excellent thriller. Some of the reviews said the main actress's performance is a bit wooden. It is actually part of her character. She is wooden up until to a certain point when someone seemingly unlocks her and then she becomes different until something else happens again to revert it.