Movie #54 House of Games

This is an earmuffs edition of my reviews. I thought that would be fitting considering I am reviewing David Fucking Mamet's first film as a director; House of Games. For those of you that don't know who Mamet is, he is largely known as a playwright.  He has however ventured into films as both a screen writer and director. His 1992 film Glenngary Glenn Ross is one of my all time favorite movies.

Mamet is part of a book detailing different writing and directing styles. He is all about the words. To him actors are props. I have read that Mamet once told a very prominent actor that was trained in the method style of acting to "Stand up straight and read your fucking lines. No one can understand your mumbling. I wrote a brilliant script and you are fucking it all up."

House of Games is a con man movie. It stars Lindsay Crouse (Mamet's real world wife at the time of filming) as a therapist who gets involved with a group of con men by chance (or was it planed?). Mamet's theory of acting is quite evident here. Crouse displays all the grace and eloquence of a chainsaw. The first 20 minutes of this film is about as subtle as a baseball bat to the face. There are a few exchanges between therapist and patient that felt like I was watching bad high school actors.

If I had to describe this film in one word it would be "pulp". Mamet writes what Elmore Leonard is too embarrassed to write.  Accented with profanity the dialogue is course and raw.  If this film had been made 30 years earlier Barbara Stanwyck and Sterling Hayden would have played the lead roles.  It's not noir because even though it has some of the characteristics as a noir would, House of Games is too slick.  The conflict is muted due to the con that is being pulled.  The stakes are absent.

House of Games can not avoid the trappings of a typical con movie.  The viewers are instantly put on alert to watch for the con.  I fell for the first con hook line and sinker.  This really made me watch for the next one so that I wouldn't be the sucker.  To my disappointment I caught on the the second and much larger con right away.  I wondered how long it would take before they started to revel the con to the main character.  It was so obvious to me that I began to think that the con WAS going to be on me.  I thought that the film makers were making a conscious decision to make the con easily recognizable to lure its viewers in and then con them out at the ending.  I was wrong.  The big con can be spotted 100 miles away.

The end of this film is ludicrous.  The actions of the main character was never explained nor were we given any inclination that this person would be capable of performing such an act.  Sorry for the secrecy, but this is an earmuff edition of the blog, not a spoiler one.


The acting in this thing was terrible.  Crouse gave line reading after line reading.  Joe Mantegna was the same way.  He plays the lead con man.  I actually thought that the film might have been trying to make a statement about the current condition of acting in films.  Now I just think it was bad.  I love Mamet and if he ever read this I am sure he would send a couple of hard pipe hitting muther fuckers to rip my arms off, but I thought even the script was bad.  It was hackneyed and cliche.  Calling women "broads" and "babe", the peripheral banter in the poker game, the "tough-as-nails" chick lines seemed pigeonholed in and artificial. 


This might sound like a review of a bad movie, but some how it worked for me.  I had a good time watching it and I am glad I have seen it.  I don't think I will be going back to it anytime soon, but it is a decent flick overall.  I give House of Games a 3/5 star rating.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.