MovieChat Forums > House of Games (1987) Discussion > The worst female leading role ever?

The worst female leading role ever?

posted 17 years ago by the_nightfly
81 replies | jump to latest

Watching this film, I've come to the conclusion that it would be much better with at least a decent female lead actress, as this is the main character. Crouse's delivery is just terrible.

This isn't the first time of course when a decent movie is spoiled by terrible acting. Mamet probably casted Crouse because she was his girlfriend, couldn't think another reason.

So, do you remember a leading female role this bad? Name a few, please. Personally, I think this is the worst I think I've ever seen.

[–] FOLEYAXEL 17 years ago

i agree she wasn't attractive and her acting was sub par. I ask myself why would Mike be attractive to her but it's all in the con game I suppose....

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tommyuk 15 years ago

I would say she was far from unattractive maybe not obviously attractive but she is pretty.

[–] skiop 14 years ago

I was surprised that she slept with Mike. She struck me as a lesbian.

[–] philoj 17 years ago

I don't think it would be better with a better actress, because she was written as an idiot. The con was so obvious I figured there was a twist coming where she called it a con and he was really in trouble.

[–] marcsilver1002 17 years ago

This is one of my favourite movies ever, but that's the one thing that has always bugged me. Absolutely would have been better with a stronger, better looking female lead. Crouse may as well have been a man (in fact, i'm still not convinced that she's not).

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aama 17 years ago

This is one on my favorite movies and... I did like her... very... very much. May be my heart is talking out loud, .

[–] ladyberyl-1 17 years ago

TTA. Lindsey is a fabulous actress (I loved her best in "The Verdict". The character is stilted and flawed and she performed appropriately.

[–] iheartjh 12 years ago

I agree. She is a great actress (under-rated, if I may add). The character's straight-laced and a prude so she acted appropriately. Mamet's dialogue style (where certain phrases are repeated to stress out certain things) may have caused the character to seem dumb. And things that may be obvious to some may not be to others (especially bookish and shielded people, i.e. Dr. Sheldon Cooper) who are not streetsmart. And I do think she has always been shielded in life. So when excitement entered her life (as Mike puts it after she stole his knife, she's an addict), she's more daring (evident, when she stole the lady's lighter and have the gall to use it to light her cigarette.

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey Ladyberyl,

I agree that Crouse captured exactly the what the character was supposed to be. She appeared to be stilted because that is what the character was. For those folks who do not understand, it is called acting. Crouse is a fine journeyman actor, and it seems churlish for folks to say derogative things about her looks or suggest she is a lesbian just because they did not like her performance - or more probably, her chararter.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] balthazar_bee 11 years ago

I am in full agreement, Dave, and might I add how refreshing it is to see civility on these forums.

[–] information_police 15 years ago

You all miss a major point. It could NOT be a more attractive female. And not that Crouse is unattractive, but she isn't glamorous. A glamorous woman wouldn't have been so desperate for sexual approval that she'd have fallen for the con!

And her acting is great in the role. The lines are written so as to sound strange and create tension.

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

[–] Bob_Brooker 10 years ago

A glamorous woman wouldn't have been so desperate for sexual approval that she'd have fallen for the con!

Good point

__________
Last movie watched: House of Games (6/10)

[–] magicphil 17 years ago

Lindsay Crouse was married to David Mamet at the time this film was made.
However, he always casts women as 'men' characters.
Phil O'Grady

[–] deftdelivery 15 years ago

Yeah, she was a block of fugging wood. Terrible, terrible actress.

[–] satansfist 17 years ago

Schematically, your argument reads:

Assume A (statement 1).
If B (first part statement 2), then not A.
Therefore, not B.

So if your response is logical, it argues that Mamet's characters have no discernible emotions. If not, then you've given an invalid response (not necessarily unsound, though, given the verity of your first premise).

Dude... wait, what?

[–] movedout 17 years ago

Check out the Criterion DVD's interview with Crouse. It totally changed my mind when I saw how much the actress understood about her character and it made so much sense in the end about the way she played it.

[–] ColdenScence 16 years ago

besides her character she has terribly miscast.

****SPOILER****

the scene which she shot the policeman, her reflection was so cool. it's like she didn't feel like she shot a guy. or when her hand was caught, she cleaned it with a tissue but when she pressed it, it's like she hadn't any wound

there are a lot of others i can name if you want.

i think she was terrible in this movie.

[–] litkodiscount 16 years ago

I'd probably agree... Crouse is appalling in the film. But the other females aren't much better. Check out the female prisoner at the beginning of the film - she's even worse!

Mamet cannot write for women. He can't direct women. And possibly can't even cast them.

The female lead in Oleanna (Mamet's filmed version) makes Crouse look like Maryl Streep!

[–] ColdenScence 16 years ago

The female lead in Oleanna (Mamet's filmed version) makes Crouse look like Maryl Streep!

LoL!

[–] Yoda-can-boogie 11 years ago

How about Linda Fiorentino in Dogma. Attractive woman, but she can't act at all. No personality what so ever. I like the movie, but it would have been better with a lead actress that could act.
" When The Legend Becomes Fact, Print The Legend "

[–] litkodiscount 16 years ago

That's one way to look at it, but the fact remains that the other females in this film (and Mamet's work in general) are also appalling played. I'm also not sure that if a performance requires a documentary to prove its worth, it could ever be contrued as being succesful.

Her attractiveness is a minor point for me. She's an attractive lady (check her out in her brief appearance in All The President's men), but played here as Mamet likes it, as a man in drag.

But she isn't a man in drag and ultimately can't deliver the lines convincingly. Mantegna has no such trouble.

[–] intangible103 16 years ago

Yeah. Suzanne Somers shoulda played the shrink!

[–] Xcalat3 16 years ago

she was HORRIBLE

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...