House of Games
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.17 You Save: $7.81 (52%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.35 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of House of Games
Movie Review: Catharsis
Summary: 4 Stars
HOUSE OF GAMES presents the audience with one who craves relief from a life of quiet desperation.Lindsay Crouse is Dr. Margaret Ford, an author/psychiatrist specializing in addictive behavior. Margaret is also tightly wound. Her workspace is compulsively organized; she wears little make-up; her attire is colorless and severely simple. Her manner of speaking is forceful, but devoid of emotion. And Dr. Ford no longer believes that her professional efforts matter. She hasn't got a life.
During an office therapy session, an anguished patient brandishes a pistol and threatens suicide. Margaret promises to help the man if he'll give her the gun. He does, then reveals that he owes thousands of dollars to a gambler named Mike, and he'll be physically hurt if he doesn't pay up. That night, the doctor goes to THE HOUSE OF GAMES, confronts Mike (Joe Mantegna), and demands that he lay off her patient. Taken aback, Mike claims he's owed only eight-hundred dollars, and will write off the debt if Margaret will join him at his side in a back room card game and help him outmaneuver an opponent. Ford agrees, unaware that the whole scenario is a set-up to bilk her out of six thousand dollars. However, a mistake by one of the scammers allows the mark to detect the ruse. Confronted by Ford's natural outrage, an embarrassed Mike and his co-conspirators say, "Hey, it was nothing personal, just business", and proceed to make amends by becoming sociable. Attracted to Mike, Margaret seeks him out again the next night, and a relationship develops between the two as the latter becomes fascinated with the shadowy world of con artistry.
The hurdle I immediately had to get over was Crouse's way of delivering her lines. My wife thought it was just abysmally bad acting. But, on reflection, I decided it was part and parcel of the uptight Ford character along with the attire and personal appearance. Having accepted that, I went on to savor the evolution of the plot, which included a twist that was, in retrospect, perhaps not so surprising.
Filmed in Seattle, certain late night scenes are evocative of Dennis Hopper paintings wherein people wait in brightly lighted places for something to energize their lonely lives. As the camera focuses on exterior shots of "The House of Games" or "Charlie's" bar, the neon and florescent signs broadcast their false promise of warmth into the cold darkness of deserted city streets.
In the last scene, Margaret's now-colorful clothing is indication that she's experienced a catharsis. Boy, has she ever!
Movie Review: House of Games: another and evil purpose
Summary: 4 Stars
Margaret Ford is cool, detached, removed-an observer-traits that are the basis for her success as a psychologist and writer of well-paying pop-psychology. One of her patients, a gambler, is in debt to a fellow gambler and hustler named Mike. Confident in her powers to persuade others to act contrary to their immediate best interests, Margaret offers to talk to Mike. It is, of course, an act of hubris, an act of self-appraisal wanting correction--an act of pride inviting a fall. So that night, she makes her way to the House of Games, a seedy little bar in a dark, desolate corner of Seattle where Mike and his crew gather to play cards in a dark still--in an atmosphere resembling her own office. Mike is cool, detached, removed--an observer--traits that are the basis for his success as a gambler and con man. He makes a rather extraordinary offer: he will tear up the IOU's if Margaret will help him in the execution of his present hustle. Mike talks close, talks in a low knowing whisper. She's either in or she isn't. Then he gives her a glimpse of his method--he shows her how he watches for "tells"--little tics, twitches and hiccups, as it were, in the body language of his victim-unconscious signaling of what someone is thinking, what someone knows, what some had meant to hide from others. It must seem frighteningly familiar to a psychologist--but so very intriguing when applied to another and evil purpose. She accepts; and so begins a series of twists and turns that oblige you to wonder, till the very end, at which point the con actually began.
The language of this film is characteristic of Mamet at his best. It is highly stylized, an endless succession of ellipses, faints, and echos. Every statement seems suspect, delivered in heavy quotes. There may only be a single additional second between sentences, but it seems so long, so otherworldly. Outwardly ordinary-looking statements seem busy with other meaning, with mystery and possible misdirection. It is a language befitting both psychologist and con man--observers who ultimately seek control over others, though admittedly for very different ends. But as the film gradually unfolds, you may find yourself laboring to discriminate between a con man who manipulates and controls and a psychologist who steers and directs. In the end, they only succeed in conning themselves, having forgotten that they are dealing with human beings who, possessed with powers of reason tempered and bent by emotions, often skid, slip and spin down unexpected, unintended and sometimes unlovely cul-de sacs.
Movie Review: A classic yes, but Crouse's acting is miserable...
Summary: 4 Stars
As one other reviewer here very accurately put it: "we've become smarter since this movie was made". Especially when we've since seen mega-stunners like the "Usual suspects" or "Sixth Sense", movies that took the "film with a twist"-genre to a whole new plataeu. A hotshot psychologist finds out the hard way that her trade doesn't cut it much down at the streets when she becomes emotionally (and otherwise) involved with a con-man and his circuit. As she's awed by all the "rules" and even more so the tricks that make the con-world spin, she asks to be "shown more", only to see that being shown more includes being caught in an invisible and catastrophic spider web. I don't want to give the plot away since this is obviously the strength of the film, but "House of Games" was one of the premier twist films for the time it was made, even if it might seem dated today.
Some of the twists might (emphasis on the "might") be somewhat predictable but that would be the case only for the very initiated viewer.
Mamet has got some great scripts under his belt, but if there's one thing that seriously undermines his film hee (he also directed it) is the acting of J.Crouse. While Joe Mantegna (the other lead in the movie) is in my opinion absolutely great, Crouse gives a half-dead performance, wooden and surreally uninspired, especially when one considers that she was acting (?) a part in a solid story. Were it not for her terrible performance this movie would be elevated into whole new heights.
Some people thought that the dialogue was problematic, but in my view it's exactly the bizzarity of the dialogue that makes the "House of Games" all the more special. The dialogues are unique in the way things are being said and not in what is being said.
But otherwise, this is a great film, also in a historical way, since it provided a cue for many scriptwriters since, with maybe better results but this doesn't diminish this film's importance.
Well worth its reputation and the time you'll invest in watching it.
Movie Review: Inveiglers and the women who love them
Summary: 4 Stars
The script of "House of Games" probably has some of the most brazen plot twists and wicked undercurrents that I've seen in all of film. You'd almost think the director, David Mamet - who won a Pulitzer for a 1984 play - holds the audience in contempt, since the main character in the movie, a psychiatrist with a best-selling motivational book, experiences every deception and con with as little perspicacity as the viewer (unless you know what to expect).The movie is basically a study on ruses and truth. It's funny to see Dr. Ford being strung along by Byzantine plots throughout the film; but kind of disturbing to see how the experience has affected her in the end. The ploys perpetrated by the confidence men in the film should inspire some slack-jawed admiration and awe, even if there success in real life would be questionable. I think in certain works it is OK to accept these kinds of slightly dubious happenings if they further the thematic purpose of the film. I mean, how many people out there would really fall for Chance's unwitting façade in "Being There."
I hold the opinion that "House of Games" would have been an even greater achievement as a book. It might be one of those films where reading its screenplay is superior to actually watching the final product. The direction is good from a layman's perspective, but there's a strange forced, muted quality to the actor's interactions. They talk to each other like, well, con men and ultra-professionals. The actors are told to perform in a way that doesn't appeal to me much, but maybe I'm missing the point.
The doctor is a strong character - tough, competent, yet still with that hidden, unexplored crevice that cries out for genuine human affection and attachment. The warmer side of her personality is vital to the film's success because the audience couldn't identify with her if she was made of iron and never got hurt. It's also doubtful that she would have fallen into the long, convoluted trap that she did otherwise. The ending of the film is compelling and rather twisted, and probably created some good material for psychology term papers.
Movie Review: Great movie, minor complaints
Summary: 4 Stars
This review contains spoilers.
I wasn't aware of this movie when it was released and heard of it only recently because I got to know and like the work of actress Lindsay Crouse in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Hack."
The movie got high marks from the IMDb crowd and on Amazon.com, but I've been burned that way many times so expected to be disappointed by "House of Games," too.
I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie far above average. I'd put it in the top 10 percent of all the movies I've seen.
I'm so glad David Mamet decided to make this movie with his wife in the lead and his friend Joe Montegna playing Mike. Both actors are perfectly cast.
That said, I do have three minor quibbles with the movie. (Spoilers coming.) First, it seemed obvious to me that Lindsay's character was being conned when the briefcase containing $80,000 went missing and Lindsay offered to reimburse the con men. Concomitantly, it didn't make sense that Lindsay's character wouldn't catch on at that point that she was being conned.
Later in the movie, Lindsay visits the bar where the con men hang out. She enters late at night through the back door, which was all too conveniently unlocked.
Lastly, when Lindsay and Joe have their final confrontation they are in the baggage handling area of a large airport. And no one else is around. Not even close enough, apparently, to hear six gunshots.
But these are small complaints compared to the overall quality of the movie. "House of Games" is a gem.