User reviews

Found the story very engaging and although I saw some of the twists coming, there were enough surprises to keep my attention.

One thing I can not seem to get past is the acting. Apparently this is something that is part of Mamet's style but it just comes across as awful. A more orthodox approach to the performances would have elevated this film from good to great.

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.

`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10

David Mamet's directorial debut features his trademark crisp dialogue, complex characters and intriguing story line. The basic idea of someone who wants to learn about the world of con men only to become entangled to get more than they bargained for is innovative.

On the negative side, while the dialogue itself is first-rate, the delivery by several of the actors and especially the Psychiatrist struck me as unnatural and even wooden. I am not sure if this was an intended effect, but it took me out of the story several times.

In my view, the strongest part of the movie was the first half, where we are still introduced to how the con men work. The trouble is that once we are exposed to a few unexpected twists, everything becomes suspect and we begin to expect the unexpected. For instance, there was a scene where Psychiatrist, a medical doctor, fails to tend to man who was shot, and that made me immediately suspicious (at the meta story-telling level). As a result, I was able to predict the twists later in the movie and it became almost a little disappointing (though, to be fair, there was still an unexpected twist in the final scene).

I find this to be an interesting problem which I cannot recall that any previous movie brought to my attention: if a movie is designed to be "twisty", and you as the storyteller are especially successful at delivering the first few, how do you keep the unexpected still unexpected for the remainder?

This film did not succeed at solving this particular problem, but it is a hard one, and the movie is still quite good and worth a watch.

If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.

"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.

The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).

"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.

A renowned therapist is charmed by a confidence man and soon finds herself drawn into a deadly web that threatens her reputation. A big problem is the central character, a supposedly smart doctor who makes bone-headed decisions. The lackluster performance of Crouse (then Mrs. Mamet) doesn't help. Mantegna is fine as the con man. In his directorial debut, Mamet creates an appropriately dark atmosphere. Ironically, the script by this Pulitzer Prize winning writer is disappointing. The plot has too many holes and the twists and turns can be seen from a mile away. The story is too contrived and ultimately unsatisfying.

David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.

To say the acting in this was B-grade would be a huge complement. It's not even close. But if you take it as a story, it has a few holes, is a bit predictable, but is ultimately a really well telled tale. It's worth watching for the interesting story, even if the acting isn't exactly great.

House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.

The movie was overall entertaining, but it had some issues holding it back. I assume the characters talking very unnaturally (about like robots) was an intentional style choice, but it came off the same as very bad acting would. In other words, they may have been doing it intentionally, but it still sounded like bad acting would sound. And that also made one of the biggest supposed twists so obviously coming that it was too unbelievable that it could have happened. Basically the way of speaking and lack of emotion after some things happened made it obvious what was going on. I saw everything coming other than one twist of sorts.

I knew nothing about this movie when I saw it on tv many years ago and had never seen 'The Sting' before seeing this. It's best to enjoy these type of movies without any prior knowledge, because if you knew anything about it before hand, you could work out the plot after 10 minutes. A movie that seems a straight forward thriller, but actually deals more with the desire to explore one's darker side. Mamet maybe made some of the plot twists seem a tad to obvious and doesn't quite manage to shake of a 'tv' approach, but that doesn't matter because Joe Mantegna gives a superb performance that lifts the other cast members above tv standard.

One of David Mamet's better movie efforts (like Untouchables, Spanish Prisoner and Glengarry Glen Ross), it's best knowing nothing about this movie before seeing it.

8/10.

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")

Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

***

Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of ****

(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.

When I first began House of Games, I hated it. I hated the language, I hated the characters, I hated the tone, but then something changed. Mamet finally took control of this film and pulled the audience in by tricking all of us into thinking this was a film about a young love and the darkness of the world, when instead it was all about something deeper. If you go into this film expecting the classic 1980s cliché of woman meets man, man is a criminal, woman changes man thus leading to a sloppy wet ending, you will be utterly disappointed. This structure is initially how I envisioned this film, and with the first half an hour filmed the way it was, there was no doubt in my mind that I had been suckered into just another average crime film. Then, midway through the picture, the tones and themes dramatically change. I didn't even see it coming, but when you least expect it, like the "con" performed in this film, it will blindside you quicker than a deer on the highway. House of Games leaves you with this perfect example of just how dark David Mamet is.

This is a film that most will either hate or love. The reason that I say this is because the language of the film is extremely "stagey". Before this film, David Mamet had found his success with his plays. The power of his characters, the unjustness of his plots, and the vile of his villains were key elements to packing his plays full of patrons. In House of Games he attempts to bring the stage to the screen without any changes. You can literally hear the beats between the characters when they are talking. The language that they use feel and sound as if they are acting in front of a live audience, not just for the camera. This makes the words a bit stale at times. You can visually see this film as a play because of the language that is used. Again, some will hate this about the film, while others will see it as nothing short of classic Mamet. For me, I hated it at first, but as the film developed, I began to see the logic behind it. The quickness of the conversations between the characters gave more definition to the "con" that they were trying to perform. I always felt as if they were quickly getting something by me. About the middle of the film, I began listening to every word said afraid that I would miss a key element that would unravel this tight plot. I began waiting for scenes where Margaret (Crouse) would stumble on her words, change the meaning, thus allowing us to develop the evil that was within her. Slowly and steadily this "stagey" language worked for me, and it gave just a small addition to the characters.

For anyone that has ever seen most of Mamet's film versions (and some of his stage performances) you will notice that he is notorious for using the same characters throughout. I like this quite a bit. Christopher Guest uses the same technique. While I have talked to some that think that it only shows the repetition of his originality, I think that it gives Mamet definition and substance. I loved watching this early film of Mamet's and see a young William H. Macy in a scene and his use of my favorite J.T. Walsh. It is fun to watch these actors grow in Mamet's films. Many of them you can see in State & Main and Heist. Does that mean that they are necessarily good actors then? I don't think so. While I liked the continual use of the same characters, some (more than others), have trouble with the characters. For example, in House of Games, it was obvious that Lindsay Crouse did not have control over her character. She seemed fake in her scenes, and did not counter will with Mantegna (who gave a great performance). She seemed on a different beat compared to the others in this film, and I think it hurt House of Games somewhat. She wasn't the strongest actress that Mamet could have chosen.

While I loved the "con" throughout the film, I did feel as if the ending was a bit on the weak side. Without giving it away, it started to feel used before it was over. I knew deep within me where it was going, but I kept waiting for the big "hurrah", but alas, there wasn't any. That is where Mamet missed his mark. The ending needed to be stronger. I loved watching this simple woman transform into evil and the entire themes that went along with that, but I needed more. I loved the anti-romantic notion of this film, but I needed more. I loved the character interactions in this film, but I needed more. That was exactly how I felt about this film. I loved House of Games, but I needed more. Mamet ended the film without giving us closure, and while the rest of the film was exciting to watch, this ending just left me soured.

Overall, I loved it, but I don't think that I could watch it again. Mamet is one of the greatest writers of our generation providing us with some very "cult" anti-Hollywood cinema, but this first film was a rough-cut. It was smart, intelligent, and overall a stage version of his play onto film. A stronger transition was needed from stage to screen. The characters were somewhat developed and the plot was sensational. The darkness by the end of the film caught me unprepared. I liked this film, but a second viewing is not in my future. I love David Mamet's work and cannot wait to submerge myself into more of his films later.

Grade: *** out of *****

Putting your wife in the lead role is a bit of risk. Something David Mamet was willing to do. But he had her opposite well taken care of. So while this is very predictable to a certain point, it is played with such a finesse you just have to love it.

It really is quite something to experience. And while as I already stated you know where it is heading, it still has some surprises left for the viewer. At least one and I really didn't see that coming. So there is the thriller aspect of it all but also the quality - writing, acting, composition and framing. Depending on what things you care about more, you'll find this better or worse than I have rated it.

Award Winning Play-Write David Mamet's Directorial Film Debut.

Mostly Mediocre to Good Reviews.

But Those who have Acquired a Taste for Mamet's Invented/Inventive Dialog Known as "Mamet-Speak" and other Off-Beat Artistic Flourishes are "All-In".

His Stylized Way-With-Words and Unorthodox Pacing is His Biggest Asset and His Biggest Flaw.

Simply, You Either Buy His Artistic Pretensions or You Don't.

"Glengarry Glen Ross" is Generally Considered His Best Work on Stage and Screen.

A Cautionary Tale of Greed that Ironically has been a Blue-Print for the Real-Life Villains in the Film.

"House of Games" Doesn't Lose Points for Mamet's Dialog or Pacing.

But there is Much in the Movie that Requires a Huge "Suspension of Disbelief" that the Clever, Intelligent Con-Men would Do "This or That" Ignoring Common-Sense.

One Example is the Post-Con Meeting to "Divvy-Up" the Reward of Their Ill-Gotten-Gains Takes Place Openly in a Well-Known Diner.

An Interesting Film if, Again, You Buy Into a Certain Thing Called "Artistic License".

Otherwise, some Things Make No Sense.

Engaging Off-Beat Movie where Typically Mamet's Fans Gloat and Call it a Masterpiece of "New Cinema".

While Others, with Equal Enthusiasm, Scowl and with Contempt and Utter..."Say What?"

To See What All the Fuss is About and Where You Stand it's...

Worth a Watch.

I had generally heard positive remarks about House of Cards by David Mamet. So i decided to watch with relatively high expectations. But not only did the film not meet my expectations, I ended up completely loathing it. I still can't begin to understand how this film can have so much critical acclaim. Except the cinematography, not a single thing works.

It is clear that Mamet is a playwright as the dialogues sound completely lifted from his plays. The lines are so unrealistic and so not engaging, that I found myself laughing at them. The plot is extremely weak. The first con may fool you, but everything that follows is predictable with a capital P. A con movie's strength lies in its ability to keep the viewer guessing and then fooling the viewer. Not only did I not get fooled, but even someone who is not paying attention will be able to predict the "big" con that takes place at the end. The storyline is essential in a con-movie,and this film showed me why due its weakness.

Let's now come to the acting which I believe is the weakest thing in the film. Joe Mantegna is the only one in the whole film who is believable and whose charisma works to some extent. Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford delivers one of the most atrocious, mechanical, lifeless performances I have ever seen. You don't have to like or dislike the protagonist, but you have to connect with him/her. To say that I didn't connect with her character will be an enormous understatement. In this film her line delivery actually makes Kristen Stewart's performances in the Twilight films look Oscar- worthy. I have seen some comments on this site defending Crouse's performance by saying that her wall- like performance is justified because she is playing the role of a person who is reserved, introverted and has always lived within restrictions. I completely disagree with that argument. Just because you are reserved, doesn't mean you have to be completely lifeless and be a human wall. The prime example to defend my case will be the character of Gerd Wiesler played by Ulrich Mühe in The Lives of Others. Wiesler was also a serious, reserved character who had been made so by incidents in his past. But I loved Ulrich Mühe's performance as he still remained believable and intense. He spoke and behaved like a normal shy,introverted person. You don't have to speak like a robot with no expressions and have the acting range of a wall to convey the fact that the character is uptight. Even William H Macy's guest appearance disappointed me and I like Macy's acting in everything else. Mind you, the silly nature of the lines that the actors have to say don't make their jobs any easier to conjure even the slightest bit of realism. This over the top dialogues and wooden acting might be Mamet's style and it might work in his plays, but for me it doesn't work at all in a film.

The cinematography works to some extent. I liked the use of the light and the shadows which created a noir-like effect.

So apart from the cinematography and Mantegna's performance, nothing in this film works. I will never be able to comprehend how Roger Ebert thought this film was good enough to find a place in his list of Great Movies.