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 $3.30 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of House of Games
Movie Review: You're ALL right!
Summary: 3 Stars
House of Games is a very interesting movie. However, there are things that drive me crazy about it. For some reason, David Mamet's scripts always have people repeating each others questions. This gets really annoying after only 30 minutes. Plus, the acting seems bad because all of the actors seem so emotionally detached from the goings on. They are like teenagers reading from a script, with zero emotion or interest. Then again, maybe it is simply bad acting.Movie Review: Great idea poorly executed
Summary: 2 Stars
The thing about House Of Games is that you're sure its lame until the last 30 minutes or so and after you've finished watching it, you still can't decide if you like it or not. Regardless, it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings.The horrible acting (especially from Mamet's then-wife Linsay Crouse) and stiff dialogue, along with the ill-advised lighting homage to film noir almost play into the "con" Mamet is playing on the viewer. Still, that doesn't make it *enjoyable* to watch.
The theme of pairing pyschology with the con artist is loaded with potential. However, it is not explored enough. The scenes between the doctor and her patient are Ed Wood bad. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad photography and, most of all, empty. Similarly, the scenes with Maria, the older shrink professor, are too obvious. The "Freudian slips" are just amateurish. There is no excuse for this, as these scenes can't be explained away by being ensconsed in the world of confidence games, where neither party has their guard down and may be trying to lead the other on. For more on this, read Mike Stone's review below.
Overall, while the plot becomes clever in an unconventional way, there was way too much raw potential that went unrealized. The cons are somewhat obvious and lame. We know the "big con" before Maggie does and what she does from there isn't clever, but instead relies on the character development, which was pretty much nil up to this point. Mamet crowbars the subtle aspects of her character in there. Subtle as a flying mallet. And yet, he doesn't want to spend too much time on them (wisely) so he relies on singular scenes with the mental patient or her mentor Maggie and all I can say is these scenes are woefully lacking in all aspects. Good scene writing escaped Mamet in this movie. Not to mention any dialogue that rises above *painfully* bad.
The script, in this sense, is its own worst enemy. The basic structure is fine, but the scene-to-scene execution is pitiful. Couple that with bad acting and (at times) cheesy cinematography and it's just too bad that a solid idea was so underdeveloped.
I wish Mamet had done two things: (1) Revised the script a number of times and made it far better and (2) Let someone else direct it. He adapted the scrpit for The Verdict which was, in my opinion, a fine job of screenwriting. However, Sidney Lumet's direction and Newman's acting sent it over the top. I truly wish Lumet had directed this.
Movie Review: Don't believe these reviews!
Summary: 2 Stars
It may be due to the fact that I was only 7 when this film premiered, but I found House of Games to be atrocious! The acting was laughable (Lindsay Crouse was dull and wooden, while Montagna's lines came across comically though not usually intended to be so), the plot was entirely transparent (just imagine - getting conned by con men), and the character development left much to be desired.An interesting side-note, however, is that this movie reminds viewers just how much influence tobacco companies had on movie houses back in the '80s. The whole film is one long drag off a Camel, and even Granny happily lights Crouse's cigarettes with her vintage lighter.
Do not purchase this movie without first watching it!
Movie Review: vacuous
Summary: 2 Stars
Stilted script, clumsy direction, mannered acting, predictable "twist", vacuous story, pointless ending, absurd proposition... this leaves hardly a chip on the table. I'll be staying clear of anything with Mamet in the titles from here on. Why the second star? My wife liked it more than I, so maybe I'm just angry at having paid the bill.Movie Review: House of 1 Stars
Lindsay Crouse does a hilarious impression of Keanu Reeves on horse tranquilizers, but that can't save this movie. The plot twist is as deceptive as in "Rocky IV". The dialogue, oh, the dialogue. Here's a sample:Mike: I can not explain what I do.
Margaret: I do not mind.
Mike: You do not?
Margaret: I do not.
Mike: It is good you do not.
Margaret: Yes. I would say quite good.
Mike: Yes. Quite good.
Me: The president is on the phone, and he says they Russians will use nuclear force if one of you doesn't use a contraction!
Mike: I would say that is a problem.
Margaret: You would?
Mike: Yes, I would.
Margaret: I do not see how you would not, really.
Bomb: Kaboom.
This isn't the worst movie ever; just my least favorite.