House of Games (1987)

In Seattle, Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a successful psychiatrist and writer of a best-seller. When her client Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein) tells that he owes US$ 25,000 to the gambler Mike (Joe Mantegna), he threatens to commit suicide with a gun. Billy also tells that Mike will kill him anyway and she is not helping him. Margaret feels powerless but she promises to help him if he delivers his pistol to her. Margaret goes to the House of the Games, a place where gamblers play pool in the saloon and poker in the rear, and she meets the cynical con man Mike. He tells that Billy owes him only US$ 800 and he would forget the debt if she helps him in a poker game. Margaret observes a player but she finds in the end that it was a scheme of Mike and his friends to take money from her. On the next morning, Margaret visits a patient and she feels that she cannot help her. Her friend and adviser Dr. Maria Littauer (Lilia Skala) suggests that she should give a break in her career and write another book. Margaret seeks out Mike and asks to see how he operates since she wants to study the confidence games to write a book. He agrees and Margaret begins her journey to her dark side."House of the Games" is the directorial debut of the writer David Mamet with an intelligent thriller. The story of a psychiatrist that feels powerless to help her patients and befriends the con man Mike and his friends to write a new book is a powerful characters study. Mike' scheme is predictable but the plot keeps the attention of the viewer until the last scene. In addition, the cinematography is top-notch. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "O Jogo de Emoções" ("The Game of Emotions")

(SPOILER FREE) Seen a couple reviews here, specifically one where the author claims "dreadful acting". Funnily enough, the same guys gave "QoS" a higher rating than Scorcese's "Casino". Couldn't resist but to put my two cents in, while laughing at clueless wannabe-critics like this.This is one of Mamet's best. It's not for kids with ADD, much like the guy who claimed "dreadful acting". It's a relatively slow-paced, compact, but short and sweet con movie. Mamet's writing is delivered by a cast that understands very well what they're in for - a con movie.Much like the protagonist, the viewer should focus on small psychological details - the way the characters speak, move, act, blink. All the clues are there, and yes, although it's somewhat predictable, as with any Mamet's film, the beauty comes from the writing. It's the little nuances with which he directs his cast that make the writing shine.Don't listen to wannabe-critics, they're clueless. This is a well-written and well-acted film.

I didn't know David Mamet's name before I saw this movie, but since then I have sought out everything I could find. However, nothing ever delivered the surprise of seeing "House of Games" for the first time. I have to admit, this film got me in completely and I didn't see the tricks coming until they happened – I got my money's worth.Briefly, without giving too much away, the story is about Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), a psychologist and best-selling author who becomes involved with Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic gambler and con artist. Although she seems a fairly grounded person she becomes intrigued with his lifestyle. Before the surprise ending, as Mike says, she learned things about herself that she would rather not know. As Margaret takes a walk on the wild side, the landscape changes from the clean architecture of her very ordered, sophisticated and academic environment to the rain-slicked, neon-lit mean streets of Mike's world.The unusual rhythms of the dialogue, which often sound overly formal or precise, add to the off-centre feeling of the film. Now I realise that those speech patterns are a key part of Mamet's art and are even more pronounced in a film such as "The Spanish Prisoner", but the first time you encounter it, you are struck by it's strangeness. If the dialogue reminds me of any non-Mamet film it is Clifford Odet's script for "Sweet Smell of Success". On that film, when the director was worried that Odet's dialogue would sound stagy or exaggerated, Odets told him, 'Play it real fast. Play it on the run and it will work just fine'. I think the effectiveness of Mamet's dialogue is all in the playing as well. The theme of 'don't believe everything you see' popped up in other Mamet films following "House of Games" including the unsettling "Homicide" and the offbeat "The Spanish Prisoner". However, by the time he got around to "Heist", I think he had gone to the well once too often; the surprises there seemed a little too trite.But, "House of Games" is unique. It's as clever as "The Sting", but with a harder edge. It's a film you can watch again and again and always find another aspect to enjoy.

I can't believe the high rating and glowing reviews this movie received. It is amateurish in writing and acting. Crouse and Mantegna are wooden and unbelievable in their respective roles. Even though there is supposed to be a romance developing between the two, they have absolutely zero chemistry. Apparently none of the actors memorized their lines, because they delivered them as if they were reading from cue cards. This would have been a much shorter movie if half the lines weren't repeated two and three times. I almost always come to this site to check ratings and read reviews before watching a movie and I'm rarely led astray, but this time I was 'conned'...