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.