MPAA Rating: R/Genre: Neo-Noir Crime/Stars: Lindsay Crouse, Joe Mantegna, Mike Nussbaum, Lilia Skala, J. T. Walsh, Steven Goldstein, Ricky Jay, William H. Macy (Credited here as W. H. Macy), Meshach Taylor/Runtime: 102 minutes
If there was ever a trick in the land of movie magic, or just the world around us in general, that I felt was more difficult than any magic trick that David Copperfield or Penn and Teller could conjure up to the amazement and/or awe of an undeniably impressed audience, it would have to be whenever an individual known for being one thing decides to do something else completely unexpected and wind up becoming a smashing success at it. For example if you had told me that one half of the iconic comedy duo Key and Peele would turn out to be one of the most iconic horror maestros of the past 2-3 decades I would have raised a skeptical eyebrow and asked if you were feeling ok. Likewise, if you had told me that iconic New German Cinema director Werner Herzog would also be successful in front of the camera with one of his more iconic roles being the main antagonist in the first Tom Cruise Jack Reacher movie from 2012 I would’ve been like “oh heck no! you must be joking!” Perhaps the most iconic example of this phenomenon in action though would have to be the story of the bodybuilder who became an extremely successful action movie icon and then managed to turn right around and become no less than the Governor of the State of California. A man that to many might be best known as The Terminator, Conan the Barbarian, or even Dutch from Predator, but to me will always be known as Ahnuld. The reason I bring this distinct phenomenon up incidentally dear reader is because I believe that the name “David Mamet” is another name that should most assuredly be on that list. Indeed here is a man who started out as a phenomenal (and extremely skilled to boot) playwright before first turning his attention to penning the script for such films as 1982’s The Verdict and 1987’s The Untouchables and then, as if that wasn’t enough for one guy, writing/directing for television on such shows as Hill Street Blues and The Unit, occasionally dipping a toe into the acting pond, writing a fair amount of books, working on at least 6 short films, and even directing (as of this writing) at least 10 feature length slices of cinema. Incidentally it is in that last category where one can find a 1987 slice of cinema, and film I happen to be reviewing for you today incidentally, known as House of Games. A film that not only marked Mamet’s feature-length directing debut, but is also a film that I happen to enjoy quite immensely dear reader. To be sure, this is not going to be a film for everyone, but for those of you who can get onboard with its distinct style, I can promise you that, with the aid of extremely solid work on both sides of the camera, House of Games is one cinematic con-game that is sure to keep you hooked and guessing right up until the credits begin to roll….
The plot is as follows: Taking us as movie goers to that fairly distinct locale on the Northwestern Coast of the United States known as Seattle, House of Games gets its puzzler of a narrative underway by introducing us to our main heroine in the form of a woman by the name of Margaret Ford. A woman who, among other things that are worth knowing about her, is not only a distinct and fairly skilled member of that noteworthy group known as psychiatrists, but who also (for some time prior to the start of our story) has become regarded in the community for a book she has had published dealing with obsessive-compulsive disorder (or OCD for those of you who prefer things short and sweet). Yet despite the fact that her practice is doing fairly well, to say nothing of the fiscal success she has managed to acquire from sales of her book, we see that our heroine still is left with more than a fair degree of unfulfillment in her life. Yet just when it looks like this is definitely going to be something she finds herself engaged in a long and tiring struggle with, we see that our favorite phenomena, ol’ Lady Fate herself, has other plans in mind for our heroine. Plans that begin to manifest themselves when, one day, Margaret finds herself dealing with a particularly problematic patient. It seems that this patient feels that his life might be in a wee bit of grave peril due in no small part to owing a fair amount of money to a local fixture of the criminal element in town named Mike Mancuso and, seeing no other options, has decided to end his life in Margaret’s office with a gun he has managed to (somehow) bring in with him into his appointment. Fortunately for him, we see that Margaret instead is able to get the gun from him and promise to aid him in getting out of this particular pickle that he has found himself in. As a result, we see that later that night our heroine makes her way to a pool hall called (get this) House of Games where this Mike is supposed to operate. By doing so however, we see that our heroine is doing more than just going into a bar/pool hall that looks like one you might get a pretty decent price for a drink at (even IF outside your car’s hubcaps are being boosted). Rather, she is also walking face first into a world that, despite being very much rooted in our own, soon reveals itself to be one that is made up of equal parts deceit, misdirection, con-men, and the various tricks and traps utilized by them in order to make the quickest buck imaginable. Thus can our heroine navigate this new-found world that she has willingly walked into and still come out of it as upstanding and honorable as she was before she entered it or is this excursion to the dark side one that is going to change her life to say nothing of her as a person forever? That I will leave for you to discover….
Now right off, it should be said that the work done by the various departments behind the camera definitely does everything it can to help make this a solid and immensely engaging little slice of cinema all things considered. Without a doubt, this starts with the work done by David Mamet in both the director’s chair and as the writer of this slice of cinema’s incredibly intelligent screenplay. Indeed in regards to the former, we see that Mamet does at least one key thing that really helps to distinguish him from other directors of a similar ilk. That being that Mamet does a wonderful job of providing audiences with a bare bone yet highly effective way of bringing the film to life where we see that he puts as much of his concentration as he possibly can on both the story he is telling and the characters that are key to that story. By doing so, we see that Mamet is able to effectively ensure that we as movie goers also aren’t distracted and therefore able to follow the story a lot easier as well. As for the latter, we see that Mamet also excels when it comes to the screenplay that he penned for this film. In that respect, perhaps the key thing that Mamet does so well in that category is something I discussed in my review for the 2001 Mamet film Heist and that is the idea of what has come to be known as his rather distinct dialogue format which has been given the affectionate christening of “Mamet-Speak” (though I can certainly understand how some might initially think that Mamet had just bought and retooled expert linguistic teacher Rosetta Stone). Indeed not only does Mamet-Speak do a terrific job of making every bit of dialogue in this film feel like a genuine conversation rather than artificial in any way, but it in turn also ensures the characters feel like real people to say nothing of being able to say what they want to say in as concise a manner as possible. Alongside the dynamic duo work done by Mamet, this slice of cinema also features a terrific job by Juan Ruiz Anchía (1986’s At Close Range, 1992’s Glengarry Glen Ross, and 2000’s The Crew among others) in the cinematography department. Indeed not only does Anchía’s work here, as highlighted by artfully darkened rooms and spot-on framing technique, brilliantly aid in the creation of this film’s uneasy atmosphere, but it also helps this film feel like a wonderful throwback in some ways to the film noirs of the 40s and 50s respectively. Lastly, I feel that this section would be woefully incomplete if I didn’t take some time in it to focus on the work done by frequent Mamet collaborator Alaric Jans on this film’s musical accompaniment. Indeed Jans does a magnificent job at giving this film a score that in a low key yet highly effective manner is able to synch up with the tense mood and uneasy atmosphere on display perfectly. Suffice it to say that, when you also factor in fairly well-done work from the editing department as headed by Trudy Ship among others, it’s clear that the team of professionals behind the camera definitely know what they are doing and, as a result, are able to do their part in helping to make this slice of cinema the undeniably enjoyable watch that it turns out to be.
Alongside the extremely well-done work engaged in by the various departments behind the camera, this slice of cinema is also aided by the extremely skilled contributions of a small yet impeccably chosen and talented group of performers in front of the camera as well. This starts with the work done by Lindsay Crouse (1982’s The Verdict, 1990’s Desperate Hours, and 1996’s The Juror to name but a few) in the lead role and she is terrific here. Indeed as Dr. Margaret Ford, we see Crouse brilliantly give us a character who might start out as someone who is very much the dictionary definition of assertive, composed, detached, and professional in terms of both her behavior and overall demeanor, but as the story goes on, and she finds herself becoming embroiled more and more in the perilous world of Mike and the other conmen, we see that Crouse is able to shed that professional exterior to reveal a more vulnerable and human side that really allows us to both relate to and empathize with her and some of the choices that she makes. Indeed it’s a wonderfully three-dimensional turn and one that Crouse brings to life remarkably well. Alongside Crouse, this slice of cinema also features a fantastic turn from Joe “David Rossi from Criminal Minds” Mantegna in the pivotal role of Mike Mancuso. Indeed this is a very complex role to portray because even though this is a character that requires whoever portrays him to be someone who is undeniably charming, charismatic, and calculated on the outside, it also requires that same talent to have no qualms about being an unapologetic scumbag with a hint of menace pretty much from the first minute that the character appears on screen. Thankfully, we see that Mantegna is able to walk that line in such a way that yes you know this guy is trouble, but at the same time you can’t take your eyes off him because of how captivating a screen presence he manages to be. Lastly, this section would be woefully awry if I didn’t take some time within it to talk about the work done by Lilia Skala (1968’s Charly and 1983’s Flashdance) as Margaret’s close friend/colleague/mentor Dr. Maria Littauer. To be sure, she may only have 30 minutes of screentime in the whole movie, but even so Skala manages to do a terrific job of giving her character a wonderful wisdom and humanity to say nothing of maternal in a sense especially in how she tries to listen and provide feedback to Margaret during their scenes together that really help to make her interactions with Margaret both thought provoking and heartwarming in equal measure. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in solid support performances from such talents as Mike Nussbaum (1997’s Men in Black and 1987’s Fatal Attraction) as a highly skilled and long-time associate of Mancuso’s, noteworthy character actor J.T. Walsh (1988’s Tequila Sunrise, 1992’s A Few Good Men, and 1991’s Backdraft among many others), iconic stage magician/part-time actor Ricky Jay, and even an early turn from the always enjoyable William H. “Frank Gallagher” Macy among others it’s clear that this slice of cinema might have a few hiccups here and there, but thankfully the work done by this undeniably skilled group of individuals helps to keep things absolutely enjoyable from beginning to end and every delightfully twisty minute in between.
All in all and at the end of the day is House of Games a bonafide perfect slice of cinema in every way imaginable? Sadly I cannot say that though most assuredly not for lack of effort on the part of either the immensely talented cast or crew. With that said, is this the worst slice of cinema in either the genre of which this film is a part to say nothing of the individual respective resumes for any of the creative talent that was involved in bringing this to life? Much to the relief of my sanity plus my peace of mind I can confirm that most assuredly is not the case by any stretch either. To be sure, this is one cinematic brew that is definitely not going to be for everyone especially for people who love a smorgasbord of special effects, a buffet of action beats, or all of the above plus a litany of extras on top of that for good measure. Alongside that, I can also promise you that if you are the kind of viewer who loves a story that is simple and easy to follow then I have no qualms about telling you that this narrative is the kind that all but requires you to pay attention at practically every given moment so you should definitely keep that in mind as well. With that in mind, I have no shame in saying that I absolutely dig the heck out of this slice of cinema dear reader. Indeed the work done in the director’s chair by Mamet is incredibly solid, the script (also done by Mamet) does a wonderful job of feeling refreshingly realistic and genuinely thrilling, the cinematography brilliantly feels both ominous whilst also giving this film a look that makes it feel like a delightful tribute to the film noirs of the 40s and 50s, the musical accompaniment manages to be both subtle yet highly effective at the same time, and the performances by the impeccably chosen cast of talent (with particular regard to the ones given by Crouse and Mantegna respectively) in front of the camera all manage to work incredibly well within the overall narrative no matter how much or how little in terms of screentime they are ultimately given in the story. Suffice it to say that if you are looking for a crime thriller with style to spare and perhaps a car chase or 4 thrown in for good measure then I would definitely check out something like the 2003 take on The Italian Job. On the other hand, if you want a great film that works mostly off a gripping narrative, extremely solid dialogue, and compelling performances then definitely check this one out. Sure, you could do better I suppose, but you could also do a whole lot worse and that, as they say in this film at one point or another, is the thing. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give House of Games “87” a solid 4 out of 5.
