Watch House of Games For Free

Boring

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

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.

Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a psychiatrist and a best selling writer. Her patient Billy Hahn is suicidal from his $25k gambling debts. She decides to help him by confronting his bookie Mike (Joe Mantegna). It turns out Billy only owes $800 and Mike is willing to forgive it if she does him a favor.Director David Mamet has written a tight tensed thriller about cons and con-men. I have to admit that it was eye opening with the various cons when I first saw this. It's aged a little since then or maybe I've aged. The cons are no longer eye opening, but you can see them coming a mile away. Although, they're like old friends that you want to visit once in awhile.The writing is still tightly wound. Lindsay Crouse has that cool demeanor. Sometimes still waters run deep, and her character has a dark side. Joe Mantegna has that dark scheming character down. For a first time directing effort, this was quite spectacular. His simplistic vision allows the actors to fill the screen. Luckily he had some great ones working here.

Man! I thought that this movie might be interesting. Instead it was predictable from start to finish. Not only that, it was implausible as well. It already started with the gold ring tell. Mike explains to the lead actress that the Las Vegas poker player plays with his gold ring when bluffing. He also says that the guy is conscious about his own tell. So how can you even rely on that kind of tell? It's not believable but the psychiatrist doesn't have a clue. She's not even sceptical about Mike going to the bathroom on his turn during the big hand. She ends up calling the bet with her own money and then refuses to pay the man. Up to this point she didn't know that she was tricked. So why wouldn't you pay? You called the bet and you lost. It doesn't matter what kind of pistol was involved at that point. I could have already guessed that the movie wasn't going to get any better. But I guess I was tricked as well being as gullible as the psychiatrist. I awarded the movie with 3 stars just because it could have been interesting. The plot and acting were just too weak. Can't recommend.