(SPOILER FREE) Seen a couple reviews here, specifically one where the author claims "dreadful acting". Funnily enough, the same guys gave "QoS" a higher rating than Scorcese's "Casino". Couldn't resist but to put my two cents in, while laughing at clueless wannabe-critics like this.This is one of Mamet's best. It's not for kids with ADD, much like the guy who claimed "dreadful acting". It's a relatively slow-paced, compact, but short and sweet con movie. 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. All the clues are there, and yes, although it's somewhat predictable, as with any Mamet's film, the beauty comes from the writing. It's the little nuances with which he directs his cast that make the writing shine.Don't listen to wannabe-critics, they're clueless. This is a well-written and well-acted film.

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. However, she is not as good a therapist as she is a writer. She interrogates her patients with subtle intimidation which causes them to pull away from her well-intended treatment. One of her patients comes to his appointment and claims an underground speak-easy of gamblers are out to get him because he owes a large gambling debt. Her patient tells her she must speak with "Mike", and Ford decides to take investigate.She wanders into a shady bar with a gambling room at the back. There she finds Mike (Joe Mantegna), an amiable and well-dressed man who happens to engage in gambling. Turns out her patient's gambling debt is not as high as he had said. Mike makes the psychiatrist a deal: if she'll help him out in a current poker game, he'll forgive the debt. She agrees, and thus becomes enraptured with this cutting edge world of gamblers and grifters. She learns Mike is a grifter, a con artist who uses deception and cunning against marks who willingly give him money.Dr. Ford, bored with her position as a psychiatrist at a local medical institution, decides she'll devote more of her time to writing. Her subject: gamblers and grifters who live on the periphery of mainstream society. She insists Mike teach her everything about con games. Not just gambling games, but the games he plays to extract cash out of unsuspecting victims, many of whom don't realize they are being conned.David Mamet's foray into the world of grifters is one of the better offerings of its type. Similar fair include "The Sting", "The Film-Flam Man" and "The Grifters". Mantegna in particular makes the perfect con artist, whose charm and likability pull in marks from all social strata. In an interesting scene, Mantegna demonstrates why the "con" of "con man" means confidence in which the grifter gives his confidence to the mark. He compels a young soldier-in-training (William Macy) into giving a sizable amount of cash to a complete stranger at a Western Union office. A well-done and thoroughly entertaining film.

I had generally heard positive remarks about House of Cards by David Mamet. So i decided to watch with relatively high expectations. But not only did the film not meet my expectations, I ended up completely loathing it. I still can't begin to understand how this film can have so much critical acclaim. Except the cinematography, not a single thing works.It is clear that Mamet is a playwright as the dialogues sound completely lifted from his plays. The lines are so unrealistic and so not engaging, that I found myself laughing at them. The plot is extremely weak. The first con may fool you, but everything that follows is predictable with a capital P. A con movie's strength lies in its ability to keep the viewer guessing and then fooling the viewer. Not only did I not get fooled, but even someone who is not paying attention will be able to predict the "big" con that takes place at the end. The storyline is essential in a con-movie,and this film showed me why due its weakness.Let's now come to the acting which I believe is the weakest thing in the film. Joe Mantegna is the only one in the whole film who is believable and whose charisma works to some extent. Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford delivers one of the most atrocious, mechanical, lifeless performances I have ever seen. You don't have to like or dislike the protagonist, but you have to connect with him/her. To say that I didn't connect with her character will be an enormous understatement. In this film her line delivery actually makes Kristen Stewart's performances in the Twilight films look Oscar- worthy. I have seen some comments on this site defending Crouse's performance by saying that her wall- like performance is justified because she is playing the role of a person who is reserved, introverted and has always lived within restrictions. I completely disagree with that argument. Just because you are reserved, doesn't mean you have to be completely lifeless and be a human wall. The prime example to defend my case will be the character of Gerd Wiesler played by Ulrich Mühe in The Lives of Others. Wiesler was also a serious, reserved character who had been made so by incidents in his past. But I loved Ulrich Mühe's performance as he still remained believable and intense. He spoke and behaved like a normal shy,introverted person. You don't have to speak like a robot with no expressions and have the acting range of a wall to convey the fact that the character is uptight. Even William H Macy's guest appearance disappointed me and I like Macy's acting in everything else. Mind you, the silly nature of the lines that the actors have to say don't make their jobs any easier to conjure even the slightest bit of realism. 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. I liked the use of the light and the shadows which created a noir-like effect. So apart from the cinematography and Mantegna's performance, nothing in this film works. I will never be able to comprehend how Roger Ebert thought this film was good enough to find a place in his list of Great Movies.

This has to be one of the most underrated movies in the history of cinema . I don't always agree with Roger Ebert (RIP) , but I'm 100% with him when it comes to this movie. This is a brilliant movie that yet needs to be discovered by the world , despite it's not completely anonymous to mainstream audience. Most of the complains that some reviewers had with this movie I find to be completely unintelligible . Lack of stars ? That's a big plus for the movie . Mamet didn't want stars in his movie ( he could afford them after the success of Brian de Palma's "The Untouchables" – he was the writer of that movie) for similar reason that Kubrick didn't wanted to cast them in "2001 : Space odyssey" – he was afraid they would distract the viewer from the story itself. It's easier to believe in what is happening on the screen , if you aren't watching a famous movie star . Predictability ? There's hardly any in here and show me a thriller that isn't one bit predictable. Theatricality ? Many great movies are theatrical – "Twelve angry men" , "Dial M for murder" , "The Hill" , "Sleuth" …"House of games" isn't really about fun. It isn't about who is gonna trick who and how. Mamet doesn't stop when the con is over , but goes one step more – he asks how the con changes you. Or maybe it didn't really changed you and only allowed to see truth about yourself ? "House of games" is much more deeper and darker than typical lighthearted fun movie about con artists . The famous "The Sting" looks shallow by the comparison (more entertaining ? Definitely , but still rather shallow).This is a debut for Mamet as a director . "House of games" is pretty much directed as a stage play . Mamet's directing style is intentionally flat and cold . There is a hypnotic quality in it. Mamet drags you into world where any kind of human emotion is barely seen. The dialogue here is stilted – a sign of modern theatre. It also gives the movie an surreal feel.The screenplay is brilliant. It's all based on psychology. A subtle gesture or choice of words is incredibly important. Not the twists are important , but the characters. The player and the mark. It's a character driven story. Watch out for small signs like clothes , because they will tell you what is going on inside somebody's head. David Mamet really seems to know human nature. This movie made me realize just how much similar movie maker is to a con artist and especially how in our everyday life were playing games with each other and even with ourselves.Lindsay Crouse doesn't help the movie with her dour performance , but I can't say she destroys it either. She isn't exactly a bad actress . Crouse gave a good performance in "Places in heart" (for which she was nominated for Oscar). Maybe she was misguided by Mamet (her husband at that time) who told her to don't show too many emotions. Anyway her deadpan emotions for most of the time fits the movie and I could name few actresses who would be even worse than Crouse in this particular role (Jennifer Aniston for example).On other hand Joe Mantegna (mostly known for "Godfather 3") not quite steals the show , but definitely shines every time he's on the screen . He's confident , manly , dominating and has an aura of mystery around him. Along with "Homicide" (another Mamet movie) this is his best performance . The other actors and actresses don't really have much to play , but they fit their characters and are OK.The ending is disturbing and thought provoking . It will make you ask questions about good and evil , human nature and psychology . You will find something new with another re-watch of the movie. I give it 9/10.