House of Games
Tags: cult, neo noir, plot twist

Plot synopsis:
Margaret Ford is a psychiatrist who has achieved success with her recently published book, but who feels unfulfilled. During a session one day, Billy Hahn, a patient, informs her that his life is in danger because he owes money to a criminal figure named Mike and brandishes a gun, threatening to kill himself. Margaret persuades him to surrender the weapon to her and promises that she will help.
That night, Margaret visits a pool hall owned by Mike and confronts him. Mike says that he is willing to forgive Billy's debt if Margaret accompanies him to a back room poker game and identifies the tell of George, another player. She agrees, and spots George playing with his ring when he bluffs. She discloses this to Mike, who calls the bluff. However, George wins the hand and demands that Mike pay the $6,000 bet, which he is unable to do. George pulls a gun but Margaret intervenes and offers to pay the debt with a personal check. She then notices that the gun is actually a water pistol, and realizes that the entire game is a set-up to trick her out of her money. She is excited, however, and returns the next night to request that Mike teach her about cons so that she can write a book about the experience. Mike appears skeptical, but agrees.
Mike begins to enchant Margaret by showing her several small tricks. Eventually, the two steal a hotel room and make love. While in the room, he instructs her that all con artists take a small token from every "mark" to signify their dominance. While Mike is in the bathroom, she takes a small pocket knife from the table, believing that it belongs to the man who rented the room. Afterwards, Mike says that he is late for another, large con with his associates at the same hotel. Margaret is eager to tag along and, reluctantly Mike allows it. The con involves Mike, his partner Joey and the "mark," a businessman discovering a briefcase full of money, and taking it to a hotel room. There they will discuss whether to turn it in or split it among themselves. In the hotel room, Margaret discovers that the businessman is actually an undercover policeman, and the trick is a sting operation. She tells Mike and they attempt to escape, but the policeman blocks their way and tries to arrest them. There is a struggle that ends with Mike accidentally shooting the officer dead. The three leave via the stairwell and end up in the garage, where they force Margaret to steal a car, driving past two uniformed police officers, the con men concealed in the back seat. While abandoning the car, they realize that the briefcase, containing $80,000 borrowed from the Mafia for the con, has been lost. Margaret finally offers to pay Mike $80,000 of her own money so he can pay back the mob.
Mike tells Margaret that they must split up so as not to draw any attention from the police, and says that he is flying away to hide. Margaret is riddled with guilt but, by chance, spots Billy driving the same red convertible. She tracks him to a bar, where she spies on Mike and the entire group, including the undercover policeman, discussing how the preceding events were a scheme to con her out of $80,000.
After overhearing that Mike is flying to Las Vegas that night, Margaret waits for him at the airport. She says that she's been so worried about the police that she has withdrawn her entire life savings, and pleads to start a new life with him. They go to a restricted baggage handling area that is deserted, where Mike finds out he's being tricked when she lets it slip that she stole his pocket knife. He says that he can't return her money because it has already been divided. Margaret, however, produces Billy's gun and demands that he beg for his life. Mike refuses, thinking that he is calling her bluff, but Margaret shoots him in the leg. When Mike curses her, she shoots him three more times, killing him. She calmly conceals her gun and walks way.
Later, Margaret is shown just returned from a vacation, having moved on from the ordeal. While talking with a colleague, she seems to show no remorse for killing Mike. While at a restaurant, Margaret distracts another diner so as to steal a gold lighter from her purse, relishing the brief thrill.

Review: House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller.
In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty.
What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.
In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction.
In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film.
The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema.
David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game.
This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world.
`House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future.
If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it."House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna).
Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic).
He agrees and Margaret begins her journey to her dark side."House of the Games" is the directorial debut of the writer David Mamet with an intelligent thriller.
The story of a psychiatrist that feels powerless to help her patients and befriends the con man Mike and his friends to write a new book is a powerful characters study.
Lindsay Crouse,(Mamet's wife at the time), plays a psychiatrist who methodically approaches her treatment of her patients, is a very closed person, and seemingly unfulfilled; hence, her interest and eventual immersion into the activities happening in the House of Games.
Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks.
This over the top dialogues and wooden acting might be Mamet's style and it might work in his plays, but for me it doesn't work at all in a film.The cinematography works to some extent.
Mamet maybe made some of the plot twists seem a tad to obvious and doesn't quite manage to shake of a 'tv' approach, but that doesn't matter because Joe Mantegna gives a superb performance that lifts the other cast members above tv standard.One of David Mamet's better movie efforts (like Untouchables, Spanish Prisoner and Glengarry Glen Ross), it's best knowing nothing about this movie before seeing it.8/10..
David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end.
I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.Her delivery is robotic.
I might blame this movie on being dated, but I have seen many movies older than this that are far far better.The script is super predictable, minus the last confrontation, which by that time was acted so poorly I just didn't care.There were only 2 good actors in this movie and they were barely in it.The story is the only saving grace, but how it was applied like I said above was predictable and stale.
I'd love to see this script idea pulled off with better writers and actors.I don't think the actress changed her vocal tone throughout the whole movie at all.Honestly if you care about your life and the people around you stay clear from this train wreck.My girlfriend and I watched it and laughed but I don't think it was meant to be a comedy.
My only defense of the movie is that it may have been adapted from a play, because that's what it felt like - a group of mediocre stage actors, directed by a 20-year old drama major, collectively trying to muddle their way through their first film.
The best chunk is in the middle.It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld.
The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here.
She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city.
Music is by Alaric Jans and cinematography by Juan Ruiz Anchia.When psychiatrist Margaret Ford (Crouse) confronts con-artist Mike (Mantegna) about a debt one of her suicidal patients owes him, she finds herself enticed into the world of the grifters...David Mamet's first film as a director is the sign of things to come from him, which for his fans is great news, but for his detractors, not so much!
It doesn't have much substance, or anything exceptionally surprising for us to discover at the end, but the numerous twists keep you alert and the movie offers the pleasures of "brainy" entertainment; it seems to have been made for at least mildly sophisticated viewers, so if you like it you can also feel good about yourself..
Mamet's writing is delivered by a cast that understands very well what they're in for - a con movie.Much like the protagonist, the viewer should focus on small psychological details - the way the characters speak, move, act, blink.
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.
It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo.
I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive.
Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before.
David Mamet deserves some respect over this picture who had intend to do for years and using a cheap casting made a reasonable work...of course the frame is predicable but the movie is intense since the beginning...have some weak points like when Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) released that was deceived by the gang and hear all conversation behind the shutter, apart from that the movie is very interesting and make a mind study...Joe Mantegna has a remarkable acting as the Crook...he made another famous movie with Mamet "Things Changes"....without forget the great past actress Lilia Skala who has a nice role in this picture and William H.
No. Because I give you mine," it's also directed at the audience.This isn't to say that Mamet is a crook or out to make it so that he does things cheaply or cheats - I think this is what sets apart something like this from, say, the recent Shyamalan Split or some of his other films, which have brilliant direction but (no one wants to say it but I will) poor writing - he's out to entertain us above all else.
The idea is to have this Margaret character not simply as an audience surrogate into this world of con-men, though she is that; she gets introduced because she's a psychologist of some kind (interested in the behavioral side of things, she's even written a book about it as we find out in the first scene), and one of her patients threatens to kill himself if he doesn't pay back a low-life guy at the "House of Games" bar downtown.
She goes and gets roped in with Mike to pay off the guy's debt (why exactly she feels indebted, not sure, but let's roll with it, it's a film-noir after all), and is part of a con involving another player (the national treasure Ricky Jay), in order to win at some cards.
It isn't an easy film emotionally to get in to, and I'm not sure if at first Mamet intentionally directed Crouse to be kind of tight-lipped or even robotic in some of her acting choices, or if it was in the script itself (as with the Coens or of course Tarantino, it feels like every comma and every pause is written in, which is fine).
well, not so much a feeling; when critics complain about Kubrick movies leaving them cold, I wondered if that was actually how I'd come away from this.But once Mamet gets to that first card scene with Ricky Jay, the movie really takes off (not to mention JT Walsh in a choice role - this movie is full of characters that give actors *real* moments to shine, even if it's only a few lines like for Macy), and the relationship develops more with Mantagna and he sort of elevates things with Crouse.
Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a celebrated psychiatrist who, at the beginning of the film, we learn has just published a bestselling self-help book.
So I'm willing to overlook a lot to enjoy a good con."House of Games" isn't a bad movie.
House of Games is what Steven Spielberg should have used as a template for Catch me if you Can. David Mamet directed his own screenplay and the result is the best con artist movie I've seen including The Sting which has always been the standard bearer for the genre.
Mike(Joe Mantegna) is a compulsive gambler and con man who takes a psychiatrist, Margaret(Lindsay Carouse) on his rounds of deception, the premise being that she is writing a book and his life will be good material for the project.Margaret goes deeper and deeper into the criminal world she is observing and reaches a point of no return.
In the movie that made David Mamet famous, psychiatrist Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) meets with gambler Mike (Joe Mantegna) to get him to cancel her patient's debts, but this sets in motion a series of events that Margaret could never have foreseen."House of Games" is not the kind of movie that you should try to easily figure out; after all, David Mamet has a special affinity for twists and turns.
Joe Mantegna was a chiseled, handsome guy long before he learned a thing or two about acting and if we are to believe him cast as a grifter, it seems like someone with a similar level of sex appeal would have been a better choice for the female lead.
David Mamet's directorial debut offers a nice story idea, but the sting in the tale becomes obvious far too early, leaving attentive viewers with little to do but wonder just what makes Margaret so gullible.
The Mamet pattern is pretty simple and is explained extensively in The House of Games: set up a story in some edgy setting and then build up the audience trust in the proceedings, only to add a manipulative twisty ending.There is one big flaw with that kind of 'ain't I clever' artsy flicks, and it is exactly the same as with whodunits.
on first viewing, but there is no way to enjoy it again afterwards.What I liked in The House of Games is the soft directing style, it's a bit too much on the artsy stagey side but it is really enjoyable to have a director know how to set up an atmosphere.
Screenwriter David Mamet also made his directing debut with this frosty but absorbing puzzler which offers wonderful acting roles for both Joe Mantegna and Lindsay Crouse (Mamet's wife at the time).
Straight-laced psychiatrist Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) goes to con man Mike (Joe Mantegna) to help one of her patients.
Anyway, it’s an impressive albeit low-key effort all around; unsurprisingly, the emphasis is on dialogue (Mamet’s still best-known as a writer) and acting (the film stars his then-wife Lindsay Crouse as well as regular Joe Mantegna).
This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good.
plots, and characters and their performances.I watched the tape I have of this film again, after a pretty long time, and enjoyed it just as much.
The other actors, several recognizable, and William Macy in an early , small role, are effectively cast here, as in subsequent films by Mamet and others.A superbly entertaining and engrossing movie, and one of those enjoyed equally in subsequent viewings.
Joe Mantegna is excellent in the role of Mike, however Lindsay Crouse is little more than adequate; her marriage to Mamet explains how she got the lead.
This is one of the best stories I've seen in a movie, and the WORST collection of bad acting and horrid dialogue that I have ever seen!I can't believe that this is the same Joe Mantegna who did "Searching for Bobby Fischer" and "Joan of Arcadia".The actors' lines are forced and delivered so poorly that I thought this was the outtakes reel, or maybe a foreign-language film that didn't quite translate to english.However, the story is excellent.
In the hands of any other director, House of Games would have been a pretty good film.
It is also a great script, and at the time, we were all blown away by it - smart, sexy, intriguing and the rest.The plot of the psychiatrist who gets sucked into the world of cons and grifts is nicely paced, and even though you know where you are, and can guess the cons as they happen - if that's all you're getting then you're missing the beautiful corruption of the piece - how good people aren't really good, and bad people aren't really bad - it's the character studies that really makes this a superb film.Seen it six or seven times and it still gets to me - there are very few real film noirs of the 1980s - everything seemed to be irony or action comedy - and at the time this stood out by a mile - it still does - definitely worth catching - a smart and surprising film..
"House of Games" at the time, was the best movie since "The Sting" depicting the meaning of the word Con.
While "The Sting" delivers on multiple levels this fails to do so.The two big failures in this movie are the acting by Lindsay Crouse and the direction by David Mamet.
I have seen Lindsay Crouse in other movies and consider her to be a good actor.
Directed by David Mamet (The Spanish Prisoner) this is a great mystery movie.
from little questions like " would a guy at a poker game really be expected to take a check off of someone only ONE other person knew" to the eternal "why do people in movies always leave their car keys in their car " (for their get-away from the murder scene).Am I missing something here , for people to say this was an intriguing plot makes me feel slightly uneasy!.
It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time.
The first 2/3 of "House of Games" is really enjoyable, as Lindsay Crouse's psychiatrist character is engulfed into the world of professional con artists.
Once the plot begins to take shape it reveals some fascinating details about the ways in which professional swindlers take advantage of human nature, as a noted psychiatrist (Lindsay Crouse) learns after being seduced by the games people play (on themselves and each other).
From the opening scene this movie just gets you.I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none.