Vidfan 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.

Maziun This has to be one of the most underrated movies in the history of cinema . I don't always agree with Roger Ebert (RIP) , but I'm 100% with him when it comes to this movie. This is a brilliant movie that yet needs to be discovered by the world , despite it's not completely anonymous to mainstream audience. Most of the complains that some reviewers had with this movie I find to be completely unintelligible . Lack of stars ? That's a big plus for the movie . Mamet didn't want stars in his movie ( he could afford them after the success of Brian de Palma's "The Untouchables" – he was the writer of that movie) for similar reason that Kubrick didn't wanted to cast them in "2001 : Space odyssey" – he was afraid they would distract the viewer from the story itself. It's easier to believe in what is happening on the screen , if you aren't watching a famous movie star . Predictability ? There's hardly any in here and show me a thriller that isn't one bit predictable. Theatricality ? Many great movies are theatrical – "Twelve angry men" , "Dial M for murder" , "The Hill" , "Sleuth" …"House of games" isn't really about fun. It isn't about who is gonna trick who and how. Mamet doesn't stop when the con is over , but goes one step more – he asks how the con changes you. Or maybe it didn't really changed you and only allowed to see truth about yourself ? "House of games" is much more deeper and darker than typical lighthearted fun movie about con artists . The famous "The Sting" looks shallow by the comparison (more entertaining ? Definitely , but still rather shallow).This is a debut for Mamet as a director . "House of games" is pretty much directed as a stage play . Mamet's directing style is intentionally flat and cold . There is a hypnotic quality in it. Mamet drags you into world where any kind of human emotion is barely seen. The dialogue here is stilted – a sign of modern theatre. It also gives the movie an surreal feel.The screenplay is brilliant. It's all based on psychology. A subtle gesture or choice of words is incredibly important. Not the twists are important , but the characters. The player and the mark. It's a character driven story. Watch out for small signs like clothes , because they will tell you what is going on inside somebody's head. David Mamet really seems to know human nature. This movie made me realize just how much similar movie maker is to a con artist and especially how in our everyday life were playing games with each other and even with ourselves.Lindsay Crouse doesn't help the movie with her dour performance , but I can't say she destroys it either. She isn't exactly a bad actress . Crouse gave a good performance in "Places in heart" (for which she was nominated for Oscar). Maybe she was misguided by Mamet (her husband at that time) who told her to don't show too many emotions. Anyway her deadpan emotions for most of the time fits the movie and I could name few actresses who would be even worse than Crouse in this particular role (Jennifer Aniston for example).On other hand Joe Mantegna (mostly known for "Godfather 3") not quite steals the show , but definitely shines every time he's on the screen . He's confident , manly , dominating and has an aura of mystery around him. Along with "Homicide" (another Mamet movie) this is his best performance . The other actors and actresses don't really have much to play , but they fit their characters and are OK.The ending is disturbing and thought provoking . It will make you ask questions about good and evil , human nature and psychology . You will find something new with another re-watch of the movie. I give it 9/10.

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

elshikh4 *** This review may contain spoilers about (Double Indemnity – 1944) too ***Remember (Double Indemnity – 1944)? It's where the urban man discovered that he could be easily deceived by his dearest ones. Since that date, many urban men and women, in other movies, lived the same trick again and again. Yet, as times goes by, some of them learned the lesson, out of watching too many movies I think!, then developed an armor, and – why not – got to deceive the deceiver too. (House of Games) presents the phase where the played-with becomes a player, but does this movie play it right ?! This was originally intended to be a larger-budget movie with many "name" actors, but writer / director (David Mamet) chose to cast his wife (Lindsay Crouse) and friend (Joe Mantegna). Not necessarily a good decision! I didn't like the performance of (Crouse) as the heroine. Yes, the character is for an outwardly cold woman who suppresses her reactions, but that doesn't mean that the actress must be cold and suppress her reactions! I watched (Joe Mantegna) as an impostor before; a mild – if not idiot – one in some movies, and a bloody violent one in other. This time he didn't bring something else his known goods. Let alone that his charisma didn't help him being a lead, so he couldn't provide the masculine charm to convince us that he's that lover-in-predicament (especially after the murder's plot). Yet, still the worst of the movie is its climax.We have a con-is-born situation. Although that female psychiatrist, Margaret, looks initially innocent, but she has some impostor hidden inside of her, supposedly long time age. OK. But I believe that that character had to be beaten by the experience's intelligence of the first, and senior, impostor; Mike. Since the beginning we follow the interlock of the psychiatrist / the scientific experience, with the conman / the practical experience. If both of them are natural born impostors, one of them obviously has a primitive practical expertise, and I do mean Margaret. That's why I see that the gun, which she takes from Mike's partner and shots Mike himself with at the climax, isn't a real gun in the first place, or it is one that has false bullets (like the one which the fake cop, played by J.T. Walsh, was holding). Because Mike's death – in my viewpoint – had to be pure acting since that psychiatrist who declared finally her truth as a criminal, imposter, and killer doesn't hold a candle to those experienced conmen who practiced the profession longer than what she did.It's close to Double Indemnity's plot. At that 1940s movie there was a man who became a victim of a woman and her partner to kill someone so they may win something. Here, a woman became a victim of a man and his partner to kill someone – falsely – so they may win something. The difference this round is that the victim is smarter. She got to payback, kill the planners themselves and win everything. It's clear that (Mamet) wants to prove that the evil guy is inside of us, and if gets free will practice his games successfully on others, and if has science will be the cleverest player of them all. But I believe that the older criminal – even if lost the scientific systematization or the methodical mentality – is more capable of hoaxing that who's still a student in crime school. That master's experience must defeat the inexperienced (like the green sailor) or the new beginners (like the heroine herself) whether the degrees of evil inside of both, the master and the others, were equaled or not. Because – simply – no one wins but the lucky, and no one "always" wins but the clever player.It's as unpersuasive as going into a gang of pro pickpockets, while being no pickpocket, and pulling off stealing all of them ! Well, it's a Hollywood dream then. Therefore if – for instance – the last scene, of the restaurant, was kind of a late flashback; that flawed climax could have been more persuasive and realistic. Whatever the addition might be, the movie needed to root well that that psychiatrist was an old con indeed; she merely didn't have a big chance before, and the ones who played her didn't know that about her earlier. Overall, I liked how (Mamet) studied so many stings, scams and con jobs, tightened the matter of obsession from start to finish, and mastered making so sedate crime movie. However, I didn't think that the shocking climax is logical or solidly built. It's something to shock anyway, and hit the viewer with the movie's main moral about the devil in us. Hence, it serves finely as a revenge for all the inexperienced and – mostly – the previously hoaxed out there. To tell them that "you can deceive too, and – of all people – the ones who deceived you before, and without having any previous experience too". So it feels eventually as a perfect Revenge of The Nerds, not Revenge of The ones who-just-look-outwardly Nerds !