MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

paid in full In an era where it is easy to be distracted, where we have a short attention span, I find it hard to finish a film in one seating.But House of Games was different. Worth being watched twice. It will get you hooked until the end, just like a movie should be. tHE STORY IS ORIGINAL AND THE ACTING IS WELL DONE. bRAVO

akademic78 (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.

SnoopyStyle Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a psychiatrist and a best selling writer. Her patient Billy Hahn is suicidal from his $25k gambling debts. She decides to help him by confronting his bookie Mike (Joe Mantegna). It turns out Billy only owes $800 and Mike is willing to forgive it if she does him a favor.Director David Mamet has written a tight tensed thriller about cons and con-men. I have to admit that it was eye opening with the various cons when I first saw this. It's aged a little since then or maybe I've aged. The cons are no longer eye opening, but you can see them coming a mile away. Although, they're like old friends that you want to visit once in awhile.The writing is still tightly wound. Lindsay Crouse has that cool demeanor. Sometimes still waters run deep, and her character has a dark side. Joe Mantegna has that dark scheming character down. For a first time directing effort, this was quite spectacular. His simplistic vision allows the actors to fill the screen. Luckily he had some great ones working here.

vostf I first experimented David Mamet with The Spanish Prisoner, and I found it unimpressive. 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. Either the twist is too abrupt and it really feels like an 'in your face' conclusion, or it is too soft and you are bored because you saw it coming. Either way it's a loser. I reckon some like deceptive story lines, and yes it works once in a while: The Usual Suspects worked... 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. Then I think most of the movie exists thanks to Joe Mantegna. He is very good and it helps because the lead is a pretty lousy character. And the actress is totally unimpressive: there is expressing a lot with little, and there is little little.I guess the bland introverted hero is a way to summon cheap mystery, but it is not really a way to captivate one's audience. With such a low level of involvement, no wonder you see the twist coming and then you just don't care any more about the main character, then the ending simply doesn't matter.