"Overrated but worth watching" | 2009-09-15 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1X054KUYG5V |
The Bottom Line:
House of Games is for the most part an intriguing thriller about confidence men which shouldn't be terribly predictable even if you've seen a lot of these types of films, but it flies off the rails in the final act (when a character says "Thank you sir may I have another" I was rolling my eyes very hard) and Mamet could certainly have used a better actress in the lead than Lindsay Crouse (aka Mrs. Mamet); House of Games is a decent movie but the director's later effort The Spanish Prisoner takes similar ideas and does them much better.
3/4 |
| |
"A masterpiece" | 2009-04-08 |
| - Reviewed By thisis4tim |
| What can I say - this is a mesmerizing film without all the extras. I have not finished all the extras but I have started some. The fact that this is a Criterion DVD speaks volumes - it is of quality. |
| |
"Don't direct this film like HE did!" | 2009-03-31 |
| - Reviewed By bestvideobuy |
| A few films fall into the catogory of ones that make me want to run from the room kicking and screaming, "Don't ever direct a film the way this one was!" Wag the Dog seemed to fall into that category. David Mamet often can't make a career transition from stage work to screen. Lindsey Crouse is as stiff and repulsive as sleazy Joe Montegna is. They perform each scene like they're playing on stage to an audience. Other characters appear to be on projection backdrops along with the cardboard street slum set. Oh, and believability. Montegna can steal a key to use a first class hotel room without the bell boy or maid coming up to clean their room and find new guests there. He can spend the night there with Crouse. She will make sure each intimate line is heard in the back row. His con men gamble with a squirt gun! Wouldn't an empty pistol bluff just as easy? The scenes focus solo on two characters even in crowded rooms--no sound blends the others in. |
| |
"House of Games" | 2009-03-21 |
| - Reviewed By User: A260448S3NX5DW |
| DVD was in good shape and delivered on time. Look for a surprise ending. |
| |
"The Criterion Collection release is widescreen and has an excellent commentary by Mamet and Ricky Jay" | 2008-08-28 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2Z6BXEMDDLJ5Z |
SPOILERS AHEAD: Dr. Margaret Ford is such a good mark because she's such a bad girl. Dr. Ford is a con artist. She is a devious woman. She is aroused by the art of the con. She wants to be a thief herself. At the end of the film we learn--when she exacts her revenge--that she is in fact more ruthless and cold than any of the grifters who set her up. What many viewers might miss when watching House of Games is that Dr. Margaret Ford was already a con artist before involving herself with the cardsharp. In fact, that's why they targeted her. After all, "You can't cheat an honest man." Or, "You can't cheat a man who doesn't have larceny in his heart."
Dr. Ford is a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are--whether they realize it themselves or not--con artists. Kind of like psychics. M. Lamar Keene--once the most financially successful psychic in America--has said that psychics have two categories for themselves. An "open eyes" is a psychic who knows he does not have any sort of supernatural power--no ESP, no clairvoyance, nothing. In other words, an "open eyes" will admit TO OTHER PSYCHICS that he is a con artist. As ANY magician knows, it is very easy to convincingly make it look like you have psychic powers. People eat it up too. "Open eyes" account for about 90% of all psychics. And then there are "shut eyes." These are deluded people who--often because of positive reinforcement--actually believe that they have genuine psychic powers. The point here is that I think these terms could apply to clinical psychologists too, except here maybe 10% would be "open eyes" and 90% "shut eyes." Dr. Ford would be a rare "open eyes."
If you don't believe me, on the excellent commentary which appears only on the Criterion Collection's release of this film (and this commentary alone is reason enough to buy it), writer/director David Mamet (with con artist expert Ricky Jay) discusses how in his opinion psychiatrists (and clinical psychologists) are--by and large--fraudsters. As an empirical psychologist (someone who scientifically studies psychology) myself I must say that I agree with him. As Mamet puts it (allegorically), here is the racket: You go to them with some problem. They tell you that the problem stems from something you don't realize. There is some "magic phrase," and if only you could think of it, your problem would go away. The only thing is the therapist doesn't know what this "magic phrase" is. You have to search for it--for the rest of your life. You meet with the therapist for years, paying her hundreds of dollars a week, looking for the magic phrase. The con is that there is no realization; there is no "magic phrase." If there was, and if you thought of it, then they would lose you as a client. They would lose their meal ticket.
Dr. Ford has a book called "Driven," and it is about compulsives. The book is, like many books about clinical psychology, a bunch of BS. The book is, as Mamet reveals in his commentary, the reason why the con artists targeted her. When she realizes that her shady profession is why she was targeted, she hurls a copy of her book at her framed degree on the wall. She proceeds to rip her despised degree through the broken glass and cuts her hand. And then she sets out for revenge.
House of Games is a spellbinding film, perhaps the best movie ever made about con artists. It boasts extraordinary cinematography, inspired by what Mamet calls the "poverty row" films of the 40s and 50s. (These films had no budget, and therefore could afford no stars, and thus had to rely on plot for their own survival.) The soundtrack is also very good. It consists of inversions of a toccata in C minor by Bach. The poker scene in House of Games is now famous. Most poker scenes involve actors who do not have a large amount of experience at the poker table. They don't have experience handling cards in real life, and it shows. Not here. Every single person in the poker game in this movie was a seasoned poker aficionado, including the great Ricky Jay, who is perhaps the greatest sleight-of-hand artist living today. Jay also invented the con that is explained to Dr. Ford in front of the "House of Games." He didn't want the film to reveal any con that was actually being used by any con artist buddies of his, so he made one up. Later an insurance salesman was arrested in real life for using the con displayed in the film.
I recommend not only watching this film, but then watching it again with Mamet and Jay's commentary on. Most director commentaries I've heard are very boring. Not so here. Perhaps this stems from the fact that Mamet--unlike most people in show business today--is actually extremely intelligent. He is a tremendous writer with a style of dialogue all of his own. He says it evolved out of a lifetime spent arguing. The commentary humorously begins with Jay and Mamet being caught on tape discussing George Bush. Mamet says that all politicians are liars and that Bush--to him--seems like he must be a decent man because he is so bad at lying. (Unlike, perhaps, the Clintons, who lie with such ease and even finesse. Such comments could be seen as a precursor to Mamet's brilliant essay entitled "Why I am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal.")
|
| |
"Outstanding, classic film. Vastly overpriced Criterion DVD..." | 2008-08-13 |
| - Reviewed By apc-discs-books |
Shame on Criterion for pricing this only slightly lux version of standard packaging, graphics, and extras at the $35.00 price point where one would expect a high end treatment throughout the entire package! The new transfer is absolutely first rate. But talk about cheap and over priced packaging and extras! Nothing but a plastic case, a single disc, a fat booklet and a few on disc extras, no more than you would get with a regular edition for countless other films. This disc might do well at $16.99, but at thirty-five dollars ($35.00) it's just a rip.
I love this film, always have, always will, ever since it was first released. So I was excited to see Criterion issue a completely remastered edition to replace the very mediocre transfer and disc that has, till now, been all that was available. I had recently purchased the Criterion three disc edition of the beautifully remastered "Seven Samurai". That set was without a doubt one of the most lavish, best designed, wonderfully packaged and best presented sets I have ever seen. Well worth the $35 Amazon charged for it.
Silly me, I assumed that, just because "House Of Games" was priced at the same $35 level that it would be packaged and presented with the same value and care. Boy was I wrong!
So, to balance out my two star rating:
Film: ***** Packaging: * Transfer: ***** Value: **
|
| |