House of Games

I can't say I quite understand what's so great about this one. Among other things, it was impossible to get past that Margaret was so incredibly stupid. I mean she's like the mark of all marks in this movie, the super mark, a borderline retarded person (this impression isn't exactly negated by her line readings of the stilted dialogue) with lots of money and a real powerful hankering for some two-bit hustler dick.

Though the dialogue can grate at first, once I adjusted to the rhythms and mannerisms of Mamet's writing, I found it fascinating. It's a delightfully elaborate structure - twists and turns every which way - with some very interesting character developments and a highly effective (if arguably arbitrary) ending.

A bit overhyped, really. The poker stuff is complete BS (ever heard of a string bet? Table stakes?) and the dialog comes off as extremely unnatural for the most part. Oh, and who cannot see that long con coming from a mile away, seriously? As for redeeming qualities: well, the last ten minutes or so are actually pretty nice with a twistedly funny climax.

Fascinating and highly entertaining, it gives a detailed and rich look into the mechanics of con-men, and when it turns into a multiple-twists movie, it still remains believable and well thought out.

Mamet's twisty plot of scams and cons is somewhat intriguing, but his trademark stilted dialogue is very off-putting in this instance. Diminishes over repeat viewings, but great the first time.

most predictable

Writer-turned-director David Mamet's impressive directorial debut features cagey dialogue and unnaturally flat delivery (though Lindsay Crouse elaborates hers with facial expressions), in the style of certain Europeans like Kaurismaki and Melville. It's a device that allows the viewer to see through to the bare bones of thought and psychology driving the characters, which are well constructed and very truthful. We are often way ahead of the protagonist, which is the mark of a good tragedy.

Very predictable and the main actress is terrible. -Edit- Oh she's the director's wife, that explains a lot.

An interesting movie but with some rather unconvincing & stiff performances. Great intrigue & mystery. For the psychiatrist, the chance to understanding the professional con man is irresistible. She is willingly led into his shadowy world to study, and ultimately play a part in an elaborate con. The tables are turned & the ending is unexpected. A solid warning that playing with fire can get you hurt. Worth watching for a few great twists and satisfying ending.

Fun movie, it feels like an entertaining play with nice pace and acting, the plot did not surprise me but that's ok because I always try to guess what's going to happen and this time I was correct. Overall I would recommended it

Joe Mantegna's character sort of embodies everything i find irksome about Mamet (well, that and he seems laughably bad at writing women characters, although it's not like anyone in this is exactly "realistic" to begin with), but the con game stuff is compelling enough, and i can totally see what Hal Hartley meant when he once referred to this as Bressonian (not to mention it seems like he took a few notes himself, although the connection is slightly less intriguing than with, say, Alan Rudolph.)

Really quite compelling stuff - typical David Mamet, really, only this time, made for the screen. A lot of the stuff that was supposed to be surprising I did see coming, but that didn't end up mattering all that much; this movie's pure style totally overcomes its predictability. Turns out some stage icons actually can successfully make the jump to the big screen.

A mostly enjoyable con-men story with a sharp noir atmosphere. However, it's nearly ruined by Lindsay Crouse, who is doing the Mamet thing, but she is not doing it well.

Great debut from Mamet, who would go on to have a very successful career with other strong films. I think if you're familiar with Mamet, you can figure out pretty early on what is going on, but it's still a fun ride.

An expertly written film, snappy dialogue lies on a tricky storyline that places performances within performances. It's easy to see what's going on some of the time, but it's still so satisfying to see this story unveil and reveal itself (mainly thanks to the two leads, whose confidence matches the script).

If you like the art of the con then you may enjoy this. Though not fast moving, it is more a study in characters and perception that allows grifters to do what they do.

Awkwardly acted, strangely cast, and with twists that anyone who's ever seen a con artist movie before will see coming from miles away. What's the point?

Great film. I usually don't like traces of theater in movies but they made this better. Top-notch acting.

The ending, I'm sure, packed more of a punch three decades ago, but I have to admit that all of the, well, conartistry prior to it had me more than a little surprised. Cool, clever film.

Another Mamet film about confidence artists. It feel like one long intense poker game.

Lean and smart and slyly ferocious. Mamet builds plenty of twists and turns into his script, though it's worth noting that they undoubtedly worked better twenty years ago when movies weren't so commonly concerned with "gotcha" endings. Mamet's reputation is a factor in that, too. Like a guy who's already bested you once or twice, you watch a little closer, convinced that there's another trick up one of those sleeves of his.

One of the great movies about swindles and cons. If you can handle Mamet's dialog, the rewards are immense.

So noir your eyes will bleed. A very cold film as are most of Mamet's, but the casting is grossly spot on and the characters are as flawed as can be yet still aware of themselves. The story is plumb near perfect and I could not look away, and have viewed it about 10 times. This is what "The Grifters" wished it could be.

I'll watch anything with Ricky Jay, and the more ridiculous the cons got, the more fun I was having. More excellent Mamet dialogue, but the actress (Mamet's significant other) was pretty terrible.

It kept me guessing all the way through and had me entertained. Like all Mamet films the dialogue gets a little tiring, but if you get past that it was very well constructed.

Excellent film. David Mamet is a talented screenwriter and his directorial debut lives up to that talent. Granted, he's a misogynist, but somehow that is okay in this film.

Probably the best movie about con men to ever be put on film. Many other films have copied the general framework, but House of Games gets it right.

Very nicely done "game" of a film, of highly civilized and practiced chicanery

Wenn du dich mit dem Teufel einlässt, verändert sich nicht der Teufel, der Teufel verändert dich.

Mamet's paranoia/con game thrillers just do it for me. I'm a sucker for this kind of premise, similar to The Game or Eyes Wide Shut or Mamet's The Spanish Prisoner. I think the ending of this one overall is a little weaker than the similar The Spanish Prisoner, but the atmosphere is fantastic and while, like other movies in this niche subgenre, the plot is ludicrous, it's so entertaining and fun that it doesn't matter. One of the better directorial debuts. Great.

Don't. Trust. Nobody. And don't cast your wife..

Dated in a way that makes it come across as almost quaint, especially in a world where radically stylised dialogue and twists on twists are extremely common, but still a good character piece that shows how enticing a con can be.

I'm underwhelmed. Crouse is a weak point, as is a decent chunk of the dialogue. Nothing surprised me in a movie that is supposed to do just that. Maybe it's because I have seen many movies influenced by House of Games. But I do find it fascinating to break down the steps of the central con, and the psychology behind them.

Jogo de Emoções estreava há 35 anos no Festival de Veneza. Estava achando o filme meio meh porque estava retratando a protagonista como uma pessoa não muito esperta, mas ao final com a atitude especular sobre a paciente que ela foi ver no hospital, repetindo a mesma coisa não como tragédia e sim como catarse a partir dos atos falhos que permeiam todo o filme, daí o percebi como grande filme. DVD Versátil.

Pure Mamet. Sharp dialogue. Tight plot construction. Twists. Outside of this, the filmmaking is generally pedestrian. The performances of Crouse and Mantegna tend to teeter between pretty good and slightly off. Much of this is due to the lack of chemistry between the two of them. Mantegna plays the charismatic conman well. Crouse plays the repressed compulsive with the right intensity. Yet the two together don't make for a convincing noir pair. If you like Mamet, you'll still enjoy this.

This film moves, breathes and lives all too well. It works just like a con, drawing you in. The audience is the mark.

A film that fools you once and then dares you to get fooled again. The first time is easy, but once you've seen the curtain pulled back, you think you're ready for whatever comes next. But the love story, the classic botched heist climax, the movie finish all tempt you into believing again. Mantegna is as slimy as they come, and the direction is surprisingly atmospheric for a first-time writer-turned-director.

A fair mystery surrounding a con man and his gang. The dialogue is just awkward, as everyone sounds like they're trying to be the next Richard III or something. After I got used to that, the rest of the movie was pretty good, even though the ending seemed pretty obvious (especially for one who had read a few of Ricky Jay's books).

Perhaps this seemed fresh 28 years ago.

84.500

Classic

Understated 80's gem.

Intriguing but very flawed. The beginning is really the best part.

Psikolog, yazar, kumarhane, kumar, tüyo, dolandiricilik, tirnakcilik, yazar, kliptomani, otel odasi, çantada para, cinayet (finalde), Margaret, Çok satan bir kitabi olan psikologtur. Bir hastasi bir gün yaninda intihar tesebüsünde bulunur. Margaret, ona yardimci olma sözü verir. Adam 25000 dolar borcu oldugunu ve ödemezse öldürülecegini söyler. Kadin borçla ilgili konusmak için kumarhaneye gider ve kendini oyunun içinde bulur. SP kumarbazla arkadas olur finalde kadini dolandirilar.

84.125

Sometimes Ebert is just wrong.

Mantegna and Mamet, perfect together.....

The intrigue in the middle doesn't make up for the hilariously stilted dialogue and criminally unsatisfying payoff.

Never once did I believe that I was watching a world that does or could exist. And I could see the supposed twists coming a mile away. Visually pretty boring too. There are a couple passages of really well-written dialogue, but this flick is not worth watching. Matchstick Men is a far more entertaining movie that covers similar ground.

Very Great

Kinda hokum (too much Mamet stuff).

well written film

Cons and cons within cons and then some other cons to boot. Mantegna's good, the psychiatry stuff is fairly dull, but on the whole it's all right. Ebert ranked this as one of the best movies of the 80's, so there's a chance you might really, really like it. Yeah, that's pretty vague.