I loathe this movie.


I just watched this piece of sh*t movie, and I have to rant about it, mainly because so many critics loved it, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

First off, Crouse's delivery is awful, and the content of her character's dialogue as well as her behavior is very unbelievable, considering she is supposed to be an intelligent, confident, preeminent therapist. Although the movie is intended to be primarily plot driven, Mamet is clearly trying to touch on Margaret's psychological issues as well, bringing out the irony in the fact that a respected therapist who treats obsessive behavioral disorders is herself ensnared by a dark obsession. But if Mamet was trying to flesh out the character of Margeret in this way, why does he have Crouse delivering her lines as if she just showed up to Day 1 of acting class? Some people might respond to my criticism by saying, "Oh, you don't get it. That's Mamet's style". So what? That's not a defense. Just because it's his style doesn't mean it is a good style. I would argue that the stiff manner in which Crouse speaks, and the unbelievable words and actions of her character ultimately sabotage the movie in its attempt to develop a psychologically complex character.

My other major issue with the movie is the nature of the con. I always felt a few steps ahead of where Mamet thinks the audience is; it seemed like he was insulting the viewer's intelligence. For example, when she accidentally shoots the "cop", I immediately knew that he was most likely in on the scheme and that they were trying to fool Margaret. The only thing I couldn't figure out at that point was what they were trying to get out of her. It was just a matter of time before she offers to put up $80k, and I knew what was going on. But then Mamet subjects us to these intelligence insulting scenes where she goes back to her office and disposes of everything that could implicate her and then goes to the tavern, where all of the men conveniently enumerate the details of their con while she listens. Watching this scene, it felt like Mamet intended this scene to be a startling revelation not just for Margaret, but for the viewer as well, and it just wasn't. It seemed like a very simple, obvious con....the Fisher Price of con movies if you will. But maybe I'm biased because I just saw "Miller's Crossing" recently, a movie with characters that deceive and double cross each other at every turn, so I was easily able to stay a few steps ahead when watching "House of Games".

So in conclusion, two-word review: sh*t sandwich.

1 star out of 4.

reply

agreed...still, it's got to be hard these days to make a surprising con movie, since their nature encourages audiences to consider that nobody is telling the truth.

reply

I certainly agree about the ending. It was definetly intelligence insulting. That was really what soured the movie for me. Lindsay Crouse is also not much of an actress, and damned ugly.

On the other hand, I really liked Mantegna, the ensemble (Ricky Jay, Mike Nussbaum, William H. Macy, J.T. Walsh) and a lot of the dialouge. If Mamet had ended it with her seeing Billy driving the red Convertible, I really would have liked it a lot. I'd almost recommend turning it off then, like how I always turn off L.A. CONFIDENTIAL when Exley shoots Dudley in the back as the sirens are coming over the hill (though the last 20 minutes of HOUSE OF GAMES is much much worse than the ending of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL).

THE SPANISH PRISONER is much better and SPARTAN is his masterpiece. Also much better are his screenplays for THE VERDICT, THE UNTOUCHABLES, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, and WAG THE DOG. He's a marvelous writer. On HOUSE OF GAMES, he was just cutting his teeth as a filmmaker. It's one of his lesser films, down with HEIST, OLEANNA and THE WINSLOW BOY, but still a solid effort. I'd give it about a B.

reply

I'd like to second that shout-out for Spartan. That (following on the heels of The Spanish Prisoner) is what solidified my respect for David Mamet. Glengarry Glen Ross is certainly good, but it didn't enthrall me like the other two did (neither did House of Games).

"Indicate you heard me..."

reply

"If Mamet had ended it with her seeing Billy driving the red Convertible, I really would have liked it a lot. I'd almost recommend turning it off then, like how I always turn off L.A. CONFIDENTIAL when Exley shoots Dudley in the back as the sirens are coming over the hill (though the last 20 minutes of HOUSE OF GAMES is much much worse than the ending of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL)."

That's a good idea, but it would cut the movie down to about 83 minutes. I hated the ending of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, too. They need a director's cut, since I'm sure they were forced by the studio to have a happier ending. Very few movies end the right way. Most pad the ending, or make it more upbeat.

"THE SPANISH PRISONER is much better and SPARTAN is his masterpiece. Also much better are his screenplays for THE VERDICT, THE UNTOUCHABLES, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, and WAG THE DOG. He's a marvelous writer. On HOUSE OF GAMES, he was just cutting his teeth as a filmmaker. It's one of his lesser films, down with HEIST, OLEANNA and THE WINSLOW BOY, but still a solid effort. I'd give it about a B."

I didn't find anything memorable about SPARTAN. You are in the minority, if you think that was his masterpiece. I rate it near the bottom, along with STATE AND MAIN, OLEANNA, and HEIST. My favorite Mamet film is HOUSE OF GAMES, followed by THINGS CHANGE and SPANISH PRISONER. I didn't care for THE VERDICT, UNTOUCHABLES, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, or WAG THE DOG. RONIN was better than all those, and Mamet supposedly wrote most of it. THE WINSLOW BOY doesn't have his distinctive voice, because it's based on someone else's play.

reply

I can't for the life of me figure out what the heck you guys are talking about when you suggest that L.A. Confidential should have ended with Cpt. Smith's shooting. There's one more twist coming, and it's substantial and thought-provoking.

Geez!

--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield

reply

I agree that it's obvious that she is being conned, almost from the start. I have to disagree that _The Spanish Prisoner_ was any better. If anything, its plot made *less* sense and depends more strongly on the audience being idiots.

Balok

reply

Lindsay Crouse is also not much of an actress, and damned ugly.

On the other hand, I really liked Mantegna, the ensemble (Ricky Jay, Mike Nussbaum, William H. Macy, J.T. Walsh)


 And all those guys are so damned sexy in your mind, no doubt.

~
"We’re all stories, in the end… just make it a good one, eh?”

reply

What an intelligent response! Next time try providing arguments.

reply

Do you mean brains? gostofmrpalmer.you need to use yours!

reply

[deleted]

To be fair to Crouse, and all of the actors in the film really, Mamet WANTED them to sound stiff and unrealistic. That is his style, and people (not me) like it. I agree with you though, this movie, and the much lauded script, is not that good.

reply

I actually thought Mantegna was pretty excellent, despite the limitations of the material. Quite a throwback to the old Noir days.

reply

Agreed. Mantegna was the one and only bright spot of that movie.

reply

I was really excited for this movie. I had heard a lot of good things about it (a podcast I listened to had it on a best twist endings list, and Roger Ebert said it was the best movie of 1987). I was more excited when Criterion announced it because an opportunity to get another Criterion title is always a plus.

But then I saw the movie.

While I did not hate the movie, it was only so-so. The acting is atrocious. Mantegna is semi-good, probably the best of the bunch, but everybody else is just soooooo stiff. Like others have said that is how Mamet likes it, but it sucks. It is not believable for a second that anybody would ever talk like the people in this movie. There have been other movies with stylizes dialogue, like Tarrantino movies and many film noir movies, but the characters in those movies are usually talking how we wish we could talk and is therefore accepted. My roommate and I watched this together and we both cracked up at the line "do you want to make love to me, see that's a tell" (or something similar to that). I understand how that was supposed to come out, but it just sounded stupid.

This leads me to another point. The plot was pretty bad too. I don't know if it is because I have seen another Mamet-directed twisty thriller (Heist) or if I am just accustomed to twists now, but the movie was very very predictable. About 45 minutes into the movie, after a number of twists have already taken place, I realized that whatever appears to be going on CANNOT be what is going on. Instead of being surprised at the twists, it was more like "ok, that's what I thought was going to happen, now those two guys must be in on it too" sort of thing. I was probably 10-15 minutes ahead of the plot. If a movie is going to keep it's twists a secret it has to engage the viewer enough so they don't think about the upcoming twists because they are so engrossed in what they are watching.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed this movie. I did like the plot, even if it was predictable. I just didn't love it because there is so much that pushes me away from it instead of pulls me in.

reply

Five years later and the OP will never see this but I thought it was pretty funny how BishopII says "the plot is pretty bad," yet also reveals, "I did like the plot" in the next paragraph.

reply

Wow, never expected a reply on this thread. I re-read my comments, my bad there, haha. I'll blame it on my 18 year old self not being a very good reviewer, haha. I have yet to see it again though. I want to.

I think the point I was trying to make was I like the plot, even though I was ahead of it the whole time. I just wished it had been done in a way that I couldn't predict. Or something like that. It's been a little while...

reply

I felt similar watching this. The minute the cop fell (and I only came in on the movie suring the bedroom scene where he says, "you have to take something") my mom and i were all, OH, it's a setup, he's not really dead. Then we were all, she is going to figure it out and turn the tables on him.

Like you I sort of enjoyed it anyway.

reply

I watched this movie fulling expecting to love it but ended up only mildly enjoying it. I have to agree with the stylistic/acting problems of the film. Yes this is apparently Mamet's style, but in his other films it works much better, I think due to the superiority of the actors. I also have to say that the twists in the plot were very predictable, and this is coming from someone that is used to being able to guess what is going to happen next. This hardly ever bothers me, but in this movie it is so blatently apparent that it is painful, and the scene in the tavern when they explain it all after it is all made blazingly clear when Margaret sees billy in the car is just cringeworthy.

That being said, the film was enjoyable in several ways - i liked the noir style and the simple cons that they showed in operation. I think with a better cast, which the trivia on IMDB says was intended but Mamet turned down the higher budget in favor of casting his friends / wife, the film could have been vastly superior.

One other thing - I thought the film was in trouble as soon as they ran the poker match scam. I know that it was planned in order to reveal themselves as scam artists but the scenario was just too unbelievable. I play poker all the time and you do not go up to take a pee in the middle of a 12k hand, it is a ludicrous addition and I wish they could have come up with a better set up there.

reply

"But if Mamet was trying to flesh out the character of Margeret in this way, why does he have Crouse delivering her lines as if she just showed up to Day 1 of acting class?"

All of the characters talk in this same harsh, staccato rhythm. And yes, that is Mamet's style. See Glengarry Glen Ross, Things Change, Spanish Prisoner, Heist, Spartan, Oleanna, or any other movies based on his plays. If you don't like his style, fine. But don't criticize a movie for something that was deliberate. All David Mamet's characters have the same odd syntax and delivery, which is not at all like how real people talk to each other. That's the point.

"Just because it's his style doesn't mean it is a good style."

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad style or a mistake. David Mamet's plays and movies consistently reveal this verbal style. Lindsay Crouse's acting was adequate, but Joe Mantegna's acting really shines.

"I would argue that the stiff manner in which Crouse speaks, and the unbelievable words and actions of her character ultimately sabotage the movie in its attempt to develop a psychologically complex character."

None of the characters were psychologically complex. It's a filmed play. Mamet's characters all have pretty much the same delivery style, because of the way that Mamet writes and directs. You either love Mamet or hate him.

"It seemed like a very simple, obvious con....the Fisher Price of con movies if you will. But maybe I'm biased because I just saw "Miller's Crossing" recently, a movie with characters that deceive and double cross each other at every turn, so I was easily able to stay a few steps ahead when watching "House of Games"."

I agree Miller's Crossing was a better movie, but that is not a fair comparison. I'd give this 6/10, Miller's Crossing 8/10. Compare it to other movies based on plays and filmed like a play. House of Games does have some annoying flaws, like how Margaret is always writing in her notebook. But I think it's among the best movies written by Mamet and surely the best directed by him.

reply

Yes, all of Mamet's characters talk the same but nobody can argue that the actors in House of Games are pretty much crap. Joe Mantegna and Lindsay Crouse deliver odd lines with little talent. Actors like Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey, Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin, Gene Hackman, Danny De Vito, Delroy Lindo, and many others are all about 1000 times more talented. Glengarry Glen Ross and Heist (The only two on your list that I have seen) are both much better films than House of Games for this reason alone.



"What? Sorry, I wasn't listening."

reply

[deleted]

"They were directed to say their lines that specific way by Mamet in exhaustive rehearsals and they did what they were told. Sometimes Mamet goes overboard with the unemotional delivery but the actors are not to blame. They did as much as they could with what Mamet allowed them to do."

Exactly. Everything in this movie was meticulously story-boarded, scripted, and rehearsed. Nothing happened by accident. Some of the actors showed more or less emotion, but they were all cold and unemotional compared to most normal people. Someone mentioned that David Mamet talks exactly the same way as the characters from his plays and movies. His voice does not have much expression. Mamet is an auteur, like Peter Greenaway or the Coens or Stanley Kubrick or Lars Von Trier. His movies all have a distinctive verbal style. Some actors do better with this style than others, because they can add subtle nuances.

reply

"Yes, all of Mamet's characters talk the same but nobody can argue that the actors in House of Games are pretty much crap. Joe Mantegna and Lindsay Crouse deliver odd lines with little talent. "

They delivered the performances they were directed to give. Watch the Criterion DVD with commentary by David Mamet and Ricky Jay, and conversations with Crouse and Mantegna and others. They were all told to act how they did. Mamet told her not to show much emotion and to hide her character's feelings. Her character is very insecure and repressed. The acting was very appropriate.

"Actors like Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey, Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin, Gene Hackman, Danny De Vito, Delroy Lindo, and many others are all about 1000 times more talented."

I don't like most of those actors, except Kevin Spacey and Gene Hackman. I find the rest of those actors you just named to be smug and/or annoying. And Mamet's films with them are not among my favorites by a long shot. I wanted to strangle Jack Lemmon's character, while watching Glengarry Glen Ross. Al Pacino and Alan Arkin were almost as bad. And Ed Harris did his usual routine.

"Glengarry Glen Ross and Heist (The only two on your list that I have seen) are both much better films than House of Games for this reason alone."

I don't look at House of Games like a typical movie. It's more of a documentary about con artists, gamblers, and cheats. Listen to how the characters talk. The slang they use. The verbal games they play. The subtle details. I prefer HoG to all of Mamet's later movies. It's more pure and naturalistic. Things Change and Spanish Prisoner are my next picks, but I prefer House of Games.

reply

"They were all told to act how they did. Mamet told her not to show much emotion"

Just because Mamet told them to act this way does not mean it was good or convincing. Like I said before, I like other Mamet films; many of the films he has just written the screenplay for like The Verdict, The Untouchables and Wag the Dog I consider to be very good to excellent films. This proves to me that Mamet is a better writer than director.

"I don't like most of those actors" "I find the rest of those actors you just named to be smug and/or annoying"

You are definitely in the minority there. Most of the actors have been nominated for oscars (Ed Harris - 4 Noms, Kevin Spacey - 2 Wins, Jack Lemmon - 2 Wins out of 8 Noms, Al Pacino - 1 Win out of 8 Noms, Alan Arkin - 1 Win out of 3 Noms, Alec Baldwin - 1 Nom, Gene Hackman - 2 Wins out of 5 Noms, Danny DeVito - 1 Nom) Only Delroy Lindo has not been nominated for an oscar, and DeVito's was for producing, but still an impressive list. The acting in Glengarry Glen Ross is AMAZING (which again proves Mamet as a writer is better than Mamet as a director.

"I don't look at House of Games like a typical movie. It's more of a documentary about con artists, gamblers, and cheats"

That makes no sense, it is not a documentary, if that counted as a documentary then movies like Zodiac, United 93, Saving Private Ryan, and just about any Herzog film would also count as documentaries.


"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -- Adam Savage, Mythbusters

reply

Yeah, Al Pacino gives the finest performance of David Mamet material on film ever. Alec Baldwin is a close second in the same film. That's a fact. Your taste is highly suspect, but we all have our favorites.

reply

Recently I saw The Spanish Prisoner and thought it was awesome. I was really surprised. Again I think it comes down to the actors because Steve Martin, Campbell Scott, Ben Gazzara, and Felicity Huffman are all really good actors. The only weak spot in the film was Rebecca Pidgeon and even she was not that bad.

I think I should watch House of Games again, maybe I will like it better.

-------------------------
Super Mario Brothers is the worst movie EVER MADE!!!!!

reply

Brians always get all the sh*t, it's just not fair

reply

one of my favorites! I watch it every time and am watching now.
Lindsay was great in this!

reply

One of Mamet's trademarks is a slight stiffness to the delivery. It's a throwback technique to the way films were made in the old days, before "realistic dialogue" became popular. The ending was a touch flawed, maybe, but the entire cast (incl. Lindsay Crouse) was fantastic! This is a great movie, I thought.

Kevin Smith used this technique in 'Clerks'. I turned a not-so-bright relative on to Clerks--all he thought was "well, they're not very good actors." He just didn't get it. Same applies for people that view Mamet films and don't get it, or people that b****ed and moaned about The ending of The Sopranos. Filmmakers and Tv makers that do top notch stuff like this are "thinning the herd", so to speak, between those that have the capability of understanding (or at least appreciating)their art, and those that either do not, or are just dogmatic.

The thing about Mamet pictures, to me, is that they're not totally dissimilar to Coen Brothers' films. They're not for everyone. If you see movies like House of Games, Things Change, The Spanish Prisoner--there's always a touch of "supension of disbelief" required to fully enjoy them. That's what's so cool about movies, I think--you're SUPPOSED to allow a bit of fantasy into the equation. And not everything in life is neatly wrapped up, so why should it be so with art?

reply

If you actually read the thread you'll see that people *do* get what Mamet tried to do and have enjoyed it when he has done it well.

They're just arguing that it didn't work here. Many, like myself, feel that the dialog *was* poor (stylized or not - it didn't connect and bordered on unintentional parody). The acting was also poor especially that of Lindsay Crouse, though, to be fair, Mamet could not have been expected to be an impartial judge of his girlfriend's thespian skills. Note that some who criticized her also praised other actors (i.e. Joe Mantegna) so it's not just that they are unable to appreciate the limitations of Mamet's stiff dialog on the performances.

I respect your opinion but I also notice that, unlike many of the people you disagree with, you don't give any reasoning to support your assertions - other than your belief that you are a better judge of art than your not-so-bright friend and the average filmgoer - comforted no doubt by the fact that many others like yourself also consider this film to be a classic.

So I ask "who is being dogmatic and part of the herd?"

reply