The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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. Macy one's first appearances!!! Resume: First watch: 1992 / How many: 4 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 8

(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 love a good con movie. From "Harry In Your Pocket" to "The Sting", and everything in between, there's satisfaction and pleasure in watching the story unfold and come together like puzzle pieces. So I'm willing to overlook a lot to enjoy a good con."House of Games" isn't a bad movie. In fact, in the right hands, it could have been brilliant. But poor casting choices and what seems to be an iron-fisted direction style have doomed this film to mediocrity.Director and writer David Mamet seems to have been intent on controlling every moment with an almost obsessive focus. The actors seem to struggle to break free and act. Yet they seem reined in as if every move, every word and action were carefully (and poorly) choreographed.The script, like the direction, is wooden and inflexible, rendering a dichotomy throughout as if it was written for the stage, not for a camera. It's technically correct, but artistically binding. As a result, the actors struggle to sound realistic and natural, and it comes across as forced. In the lead role, Lindsay Crouse is stiff and amateurish. Her character never really develops from the cool and uptight physician to the loose and morally reckless criminal that she is supposed to become. Her lines are delivered like a recitation, as if she is struggling to get each syllable correct. I'm not sure if it's her acting or Mamet's directing. Either way, it can be painful to watch at times.The rest of the cast strive to overcome Mamet's direction, and for the most part, they succeed. Joe Mantegna turns on the charm here and there, and pulls off the affable con man with as much panache as he's allowed. The story is great, and had the cast been allowed to run with it, the movie might have been a real gem. The subtle nuances that could have given the film depth were all but ignored, sub-plots went nowhere, and characters that should have been more developed came across two-dimensional.As I said, I'm willing to forgive a lot for art's sake, and this movie required a lot of forgiveness. But it did provide a couple of hours of entertainment. It kept me engrossed and involved, and for that I gave it a 6 out of 10 stars.