Afer conning Margaret, the guys meet at the bar to split the take. Wouldn't they choose a private locale like somebody's house? After all, Margaret kenw the place, she was guilt-ridden and fascinated by Mike, etc. She very well might show up there again, despite what they thought about her holding up and all.
Darn good movie, though.
I guess we'll have to chalk that up to screenwriter's license on Mamet's part. It seems like until Margaret came in, there were nothing but crooks in that bar. But the fact that she went there once would suggest that she might go back.
The "cop" should have kept a lower profile, and the guys should have checked to make sure no one was eavesdropping behind the panel, but hey – that's the movies for you. And this one, as you said, is darn good.
But along those lines, why did the hotel guest leave his key at the front desk if he wasn't checking out? Obviously he was part of the con, but why would a guest do that if he's just going out for the night? OK, I know: screenwriter's license.
This is still a great film.
[deleted]
I know that the hotel guest was part of the con. I just wondered why any hotel guest would do that (no pockets?), and why Margaret would fall for it, even if she wasn't wise to the ways of the con men.
I agree that Lindsay Crouse is superb in this film. Her icy delivery is totally appropriate for a woman from academia who is intelligent but not "street smart."
I would love to have seen this on the big screen or, like all of Mamet's productions, on the stage. This film has excellent, provocative dialogue and tremendous tension. It's an action movie for grown-ups.
[deleted]
Thanks for your comments! I guess it probably is more common for guests of some of the better hotels to leave their keys (or these days, magnetic cards) at the front desk for security. I just haven't stayed in many of the better hotels. ;-)
I just saw "The Edge" a few months ago, and was floored by how suspenseful it was. Part of what makes it such a great film is Mamet builds up the characters and the tension before hitting us with the action. And it all feels very believable because they used a real, trained bear and not gimmicky CGI or editing.
There was a time in the '60s and '70s when action films were geared to a more mature audience, hence my "action movie for grown-ups" comment. Films with the likes of Lee Marvin, Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood had sophisticated scripts and plots. It seemed to change in the '80s with the Schwarzenegger flicks and cop buddy movies like "Lethal Weapon," which relied more on snappy dialogue and special effects than on character and plot development. I miss the older, intelligent action films, but Mamet is continuing that tradition.
[deleted]
I love "The Spanish Prisoner"! I saw that in the theater when it was released.
Another terrific adult action picture from the master of literate suspense. Mamet's scripts never talk down to the audience, and for that I am eternall grateful.
Steve Martin is terrific there, and Campbell Scott is excellent as always.
What I wonder is how they knew the desk clerk 1) wouldn't take the key when the "guest" dropped it off, or 2) wouldn't notice that someone else had taken it off the counter, and send security after them or, if they've gone before he realized what happened, up to the room.
"The clerk was in on it too" is the only explanation that makes any sense, I guess.
________________________________________
I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.
If the desk clerk told the couple that there were no rooms available because of the Convention, how did they (the con men) managed to rent two rooms?
The first one, where Mike left his pocket knife was obviously rented a few hours before he re-encountered with Margaret. But, when did Mike had the time to plant his things in the room?
Why would they return to House of Games so soon? Don't forget,they were all there, including her "patient." Also, when the patient came by to tell her he was stopping his therapy (their goal of getting the money had been completed) why would he drive the red convertible to her office? They were taking a chance that she would see the car (which she did) and return to the House again as she wanted another go with Mike and would see them. I figure it had to be there as these mistakes is what made her catch on that she'd been scammed.
One thing no one's mentioned yet:
They're cocky. They figure, all said and done, that even if Ford should catch on, she'd be too embarrassed to make a fuss.
Like Mike said later, it'd undermine her own professional reputation and likely ruin her.
I think it's likely they targeted her from the get-go precisely because she's a famous, published author with a lot more to lose than $80,000.
I've actually seen this happen in real life. Years ago in NYC near Penn Station, a monte-tosser was running the con on some college kid, takes the kid for $60 and then, right in front of the kid, he PAYS OFF THE SHILL (the fake spectator who goaded the college kid into betting on the "sure thing").
That was one sick looking kid. But he learned something, I'll wager. And again, the con was over so there was no reason to hide the players any longer.
[deleted]
No, its the same bar from the second meet with Mike.
shareHaving not read all of the other posts I'll say this: What I got out of it was arrogance on their/Mike's part. They thought they had her so totally that she would never come back to their "part of town".
share