House of Games (1987)

Purely Joyful Movie!

Fresh and Exciting

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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.

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.

*** 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 !

House of Games is what Steven Spielberg should have used as a template for Catch me if you Can. David Mamet directed his own screenplay and the result is the best con artist movie I've seen including The Sting which has always been the standard bearer for the genre. Mike(Joe Mantegna) is a compulsive gambler and con man who takes a psychiatrist, Margaret(Lindsay Carouse) on his rounds of deception, the premise being that she is writing a book and his life will be good material for the project.Margaret goes deeper and deeper into the criminal world she is observing and reaches a point of no return. Mamet has written a smart, precise script which Mantegna and Carouse devour.