Cheap House of Games (Video) (David Mamet) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of House of Games

You Cannot Cheat An Honest Man or Woman
In his 1987 directorial debut, HOUSE OF GAMES, master writer David Mamet delivers a chilling account of the relationship between Dr. Margaret Ford and a low rent gangster named Mike who tries to seduce her. <
> <
>A psychological thriller that features the acting chops of Mamet's then wife, Lindsay Crouse and character actor Joe Montegna, HOUSE OF GAMES really stars Mamet's brilliant dialouge that captivates the audience with its hypnotic rhythms and captivating sentence structures. <
> <
>In a nutshell the plot is simple. In this dark drama, Dr. Ford is an emotionally conservative psychologist and best selling author of a self help book. Through one of her patients she meets Mike, an underworld gangster type who charms her with his tales of the cons he and his cohorts use to swindle seemingly innocent people. <
> <
>Believing she is becoming privvy to the secret world of gamblers and con artists, Dr. Ford drops her guard and follows Mike through a series of cons that seem to work flawlessly. <
> <
>At times a suspicious person who trusts no one, Dr. Ford at other times appears to be pliable stooge, easily manipulated by a seasoned con man. But is she really as innocent and as naive as she appears? Or is Mike the real stool pigeon? It is never easy to say for sure, even when the film ends. <
> <
>But one thing is definitely clear half way through the film: Dr. Margaret Ford is not as honest nor as much in control as her patients believe. But who will pay the price for a con gone awry? No one knows until the final scene closes and you are left to wonder what secrets lie behind the faces of the innocent and the guilty alike. <
> <
>- Regina McMenamin

---

Good, although I was able to predict the surprises
Many years ago, someone recommended this film to me, and I can understand why. It's a clever film, full of surprises as the protagonist psychiatrist is drawn into the world of confidence men, finding herself fascinated by their very different life. Mamet is known for his dialogue, perfected on the stage, that tries to recreate "normal" speaking patterns. It might be normal, but it's not necessarily realistic. What I like about it is the quickness of it (something also from the stage), moving on from character to character without necessarily waiting for the audience to follow. <
> <
>Unfortunately, I must have seen enough of these kinds of movies because I was able to predict a number of the surprises, including the major one. Still, I enjoyed the movie and would be willing to see another one by Mamet.

---

You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention.
When I first began House of Games, I hated it. I hated the language, I hated the characters, I hated the tone, but then something changed. Mamet finally took control of this film and pulled the audience in by tricking all of us into thinking this was a film about a young love and the darkness of the world, when instead it was all about something deeper. If you go into this film expecting the classic 1980s cliché of woman meets man, man is a criminal, woman changes man thus leading to a sloppy wet ending, you will be utterly disappointed. This structure is initially how I envisioned this film, and with the first half an hour filmed the way it was, there was no doubt in my mind that I had been suckered into just another average crime film. Then, midway through the picture, the tones and themes dramatically change. I didn't even see it coming, but when you least expect it, like the "con" performed in this film, it will blindside you quicker than a deer on the highway. House of Games leaves you with this perfect example of just how dark David Mamet is. <
> <
>This is a film that most will either hate or love. The reason that I say this is because the language of the film is extremely "stagey". Before this film, David Mamet had found his success with his plays. The power of his characters, the unjustness of his plots, and the vile of his villains were key elements to packing his plays full of patrons. In House of Games he attempts to bring the stage to the screen without any changes. You can literally hear the beats between the characters when they are talking. The language that they use feel and sound as if they are acting in front of a live audience, not just for the camera. This makes the words a bit stale at times. You can visually see this film as a play because of the language that is used. Again, some will hate this about the film, while others will see it as nothing short of classic Mamet. For me, I hated it at first, but as the film developed, I began to see the logic behind it. The quickness of the conversations between the characters gave more definition to the "con" that they were trying to perform. I always felt as if they were quickly getting something by me. About the middle of the film, I began listening to every word said afraid that I would miss a key element that would unravel this tight plot. I began waiting for scenes where Margaret (Crouse) would stumble on her words, change the meaning, thus allowing us to develop the evil that was within her. Slowly and steadily this "stagey" language worked for me, and it gave just a small addition to the characters. <
> <
>For anyone that has ever seen most of Mamet's film versions (and some of his stage performances) you will notice that he is notorious for using the same characters throughout. I like this quite a bit. Christopher Guest uses the same technique. While I have talked to some that think that it only shows the repetition of his originality, I think that it gives Mamet definition and substance. I loved watching this early film of Mamet's and see a young William H. Macy in a scene and his use of my favorite J.T. Walsh. It is fun to watch these actors grow in Mamet's films. Many of them you can see in State & Main and Heist. Does that mean that they are necessarily good actors then? I don't think so. While I liked the continual use of the same characters, some (more than others), have trouble with the characters. For example, in House of Games, it was obvious that Lindsay Crouse did not have control over her character. She seemed fake in her scenes, and did not counter will with Mantegna (who gave a great performance). She seemed on a different beat compared to the others in this film, and I think it hurt House of Games somewhat. She wasn't the strongest actress that Mamet could have chosen. <
> <
>While I loved the "con" throughout the film, I did feel as if the ending was a bit on the weak side. Without giving it away, it started to feel used before it was over. I knew deep within me where it was going, but I kept waiting for the big "hurrah", but alas, there wasn't any. That is where Mamet missed his mark. The ending needed to be stronger. I loved watching this simple woman transform into evil and the entire themes that went along with that, but I needed more. I loved the anti-romantic notion of this film, but I needed more. I loved the character interactions in this film, but I needed more. That was exactly how I felt about this film. I loved House of Games, but I needed more. Mamet ended the film without giving us closure, and while the rest of the film was exciting to watch, this ending just left me soured. <
> <
>Overall, I loved it, but I don't think that I could watch it again. Mamet is one of the greatest writers of our generation providing us with some very "cult" anti-Hollywood cinema, but this first film was a rough-cut. It was smart, intelligent, and overall a stage version of his play onto film. A stronger transition was needed from stage to screen. The characters were somewhat developed and the plot was sensational. The darkness by the end of the film caught me unprepared. I liked this film, but a second viewing is not in my future. I love David Mamet's work and cannot wait to submerge myself into more of his films later. <
> <
>Grade: *** out of *****