← Back to Reviews
in
House of Games, 1987
A psychiatrist named Margaret (Lindsay Crouse) is celebrating the release of her first book when she becomes concerned about a patient who owes a serious debt to a group of gamblers led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). But the gamblers actually turn out to be a crew of con men, and Margaret--under the guise of "research" for a new book--allows herself to be pulled into their scams, big and small.
This is definitely a David Mamet film--and maybe the most Mamet of any of his films I've see--for better or for worse.
For me, the strength here is definitely the cohesion between the actors and the writing. The way that Crouse and Mantegna give their own pace to the dialogue is just fantastic. They feel like they're operating on different planes of existence, with Crouse's laconic delivery contrasting with Mantegna's assured patter. The supporting cast is likewise a great fit for the material. Ricky Jay as one of Mike's conmen collaborators is solid as ever, and on the other end of the spectrum Lilia Skala as Margaret's kindhearted mentor with no idea what her prized pupil is up to.
The way that the film is shot is also effective, with many scenes taking place in spaces that feel just a bit too small, a bit too cramped. The sequences with the conmen almost exclusively take place in dimly lit environments, so that the sense of Margaret descending into something seedy works on a visual level.
The downside to me was just a bit too much predictability. It was really hard for me to tell if certain plot points were meant to be surprises, or if they were things that we as the audience were meant to have sussed out right from the beginning. The story still works, to a degree, but I wish that there had been a few more unexpected moments. And I'm not talking specifically about "plot twists", but just overall: the plot, the character trajectories, etc.
I liked this film, but was a bit surprised that liking it was as far as I went.
House of Games, 1987
A psychiatrist named Margaret (Lindsay Crouse) is celebrating the release of her first book when she becomes concerned about a patient who owes a serious debt to a group of gamblers led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). But the gamblers actually turn out to be a crew of con men, and Margaret--under the guise of "research" for a new book--allows herself to be pulled into their scams, big and small.
This is definitely a David Mamet film--and maybe the most Mamet of any of his films I've see--for better or for worse.
For me, the strength here is definitely the cohesion between the actors and the writing. The way that Crouse and Mantegna give their own pace to the dialogue is just fantastic. They feel like they're operating on different planes of existence, with Crouse's laconic delivery contrasting with Mantegna's assured patter. The supporting cast is likewise a great fit for the material. Ricky Jay as one of Mike's conmen collaborators is solid as ever, and on the other end of the spectrum Lilia Skala as Margaret's kindhearted mentor with no idea what her prized pupil is up to.
The way that the film is shot is also effective, with many scenes taking place in spaces that feel just a bit too small, a bit too cramped. The sequences with the conmen almost exclusively take place in dimly lit environments, so that the sense of Margaret descending into something seedy works on a visual level.
The downside to me was just a bit too much predictability. It was really hard for me to tell if certain plot points were meant to be surprises, or if they were things that we as the audience were meant to have sussed out right from the beginning. The story still works, to a degree, but I wish that there had been a few more unexpected moments. And I'm not talking specifically about "plot twists", but just overall: the plot, the character trajectories, etc.
I liked this film, but was a bit surprised that liking it was as far as I went.