Don't listen to the negative reviews

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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

In Seattle, Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a successful psychiatrist and writer of a best-seller. When her client Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein) tells that he owes US$ 25,000 to the gambler Mike (Joe Mantegna), he threatens to commit suicide with a gun. Billy also tells that Mike will kill him anyway and she is not helping him. Margaret feels powerless but she promises to help him if he delivers his pistol to her. Margaret goes to the House of the Games, a place where gamblers play pool in the saloon and poker in the rear, and she meets the cynical con man Mike. He tells that Billy owes him only US$ 800 and he would forget the debt if she helps him in a poker game. Margaret observes a player but she finds in the end that it was a scheme of Mike and his friends to take money from her. On the next morning, Margaret visits a patient and she feels that she cannot help her. Her friend and adviser Dr. Maria Littauer (Lilia Skala) suggests that she should give a break in her career and write another book. Margaret seeks out Mike and asks to see how he operates since she wants to study the confidence games to write a book. He agrees and Margaret begins her journey to her dark side."House of the Games" is the directorial debut of the writer David Mamet with an intelligent thriller. The story of a psychiatrist that feels powerless to help her patients and befriends the con man Mike and his friends to write a new book is a powerful characters study. Mike' scheme is predictable but the plot keeps the attention of the viewer until the last scene. In addition, the cinematography is top-notch. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "O Jogo de Emoções" ("The Game of Emotions")

I didn't know David Mamet's name before I saw this movie, but since then I have sought out everything I could find. However, nothing ever delivered the surprise of seeing "House of Games" for the first time. I have to admit, this film got me in completely and I didn't see the tricks coming until they happened – I got my money's worth.Briefly, without giving too much away, the story is about Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), a psychologist and best-selling author who becomes involved with Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic gambler and con artist. Although she seems a fairly grounded person she becomes intrigued with his lifestyle. Before the surprise ending, as Mike says, she learned things about herself that she would rather not know. As Margaret takes a walk on the wild side, the landscape changes from the clean architecture of her very ordered, sophisticated and academic environment to the rain-slicked, neon-lit mean streets of Mike's world.The unusual rhythms of the dialogue, which often sound overly formal or precise, add to the off-centre feeling of the film. Now I realise that those speech patterns are a key part of Mamet's art and are even more pronounced in a film such as "The Spanish Prisoner", but the first time you encounter it, you are struck by it's strangeness. If the dialogue reminds me of any non-Mamet film it is Clifford Odet's script for "Sweet Smell of Success". On that film, when the director was worried that Odet's dialogue would sound stagy or exaggerated, Odets told him, 'Play it real fast. Play it on the run and it will work just fine'. I think the effectiveness of Mamet's dialogue is all in the playing as well. The theme of 'don't believe everything you see' popped up in other Mamet films following "House of Games" including the unsettling "Homicide" and the offbeat "The Spanish Prisoner". However, by the time he got around to "Heist", I think he had gone to the well once too often; the surprises there seemed a little too trite.But, "House of Games" is unique. It's as clever as "The Sting", but with a harder edge. It's a film you can watch again and again and always find another aspect to enjoy.

Man! I thought that this movie might be interesting. Instead it was predictable from start to finish. Not only that, it was implausible as well. It already started with the gold ring tell. Mike explains to the lead actress that the Las Vegas poker player plays with his gold ring when bluffing. He also says that the guy is conscious about his own tell. So how can you even rely on that kind of tell? It's not believable but the psychiatrist doesn't have a clue. She's not even sceptical about Mike going to the bathroom on his turn during the big hand. She ends up calling the bet with her own money and then refuses to pay the man. Up to this point she didn't know that she was tricked. So why wouldn't you pay? You called the bet and you lost. It doesn't matter what kind of pistol was involved at that point. I could have already guessed that the movie wasn't going to get any better. But I guess I was tricked as well being as gullible as the psychiatrist. I awarded the movie with 3 stars just because it could have been interesting. The plot and acting were just too weak. Can't recommend.