Spoilers. In his essay on "compensation," which we would nowadays call "immanent justice," (or maybe "karma") Emerson wrote: "Commit a crime and the earth is made of glass." After participating in a theft and murder, Lindsay Crouse returns to her office and the first thing she does is close all the blinds, as if her conscience, indeed the conscience of the whole world, is outside, staring in at her.

This is a fairly intelligent movie, especially considering that it's the first outing as director for David Mamet. He handles the camera quite well. Nothing looks stagy. And he knows when to let the shot linger on the door to "The House of Games" as it swings very slowly closed after Crouse enters for the first time, and we get to hear the latch click shut behind her. The screen is filled with a huge sturdy doorknob and lock, and a somewhat ragged sign reading simply "Games."

It's a story of the long con, meaning a thoroughly planned and time-consuming scenario played for big stakes, like "The Sting". The whole plot, involving a dozen people, is orchestrated down to the smallest move and the placement of props by Joe Montegna and the mark is Crouse, although she doesn't discover this until the end, and then only by accident. Yes, some of the dialog sounds as if it's being read from cue cards, but I take this to be deliberate stylization. Crouse and Montegna have shown in other works that they can be as naturalistic as the next performer.

Here, with Mamet's odd script, they take chances. There is a lot of repetition. Character A says, "I'm going to take you somewhere." B says: "You're going to take me somewhere." This goes on mostly between the two leads. There are many instances, still sounding stylized, of speakers interrupting themselves and beginning a new utterance: "I can't believe that -- How did all this get started?" I think rhetoricians call this "anacoluthia" but I wouldn't bet on it. When the narrative requires it, the dialog moves along with considerable verve. The script is to movies what Hemingway's prose was to literature as far as stylization goes, and it works here. (It doesn't always work: vide "Barfly.")

The film gives us a picture of human nature that isn't very pretty. We are all con men, it says. And we are, in a way, although not always illegally. The sociologist Erving Goffman called our everyday con jobs "impression management." Goffman also wrote a fascinating article called "Cooling Out the Mark," a study of how con men quiet the mark down in order to leave him sufficiently satisfied with himself that he doesn't go to the cops or otherwise seek revenge. Montegna does a splendid job of cooling out Crouse: "You're going to feel a strong need to confess. Don't do it. You had nothing to do with it. It was all an accident. You're completely innocent." (This just after he's relieved her of "eighty large" and is about to beat it to the airport to skip town.)

Lindsay Crouse, as I say, is the mark, but she's hardly an innocent bystander. She has written a best seller, "Driven", about compulsive behavior, but she smokes a lot and steals things and is drawn to the world the con people inhabit. As a psychiatrist, however, she has learned to "forgive herself" (how do you do that?) and after shooting her exploiter full of numerous holes, she takes a vacation, comes back, and with tan and a big smile boosts a gold lighter out of the purse of a woman sitting next to her in a restaurant.

There is so much unwatchable garbage on the screen these days that when something comes along that doesn't insult your intelligence, like this movie, I feel myself heaving a sigh of relief. Definitely worth watching.

Overall, I felt very ambivalent about this film, so it's earning a 6. This is an odd film to review in that when the movie was good it was very good and when it was bad, it was very bad.

First, the good. The dialog, at times, sounds like it came from an old Film Noir flick--it's very snappy and fast-paced. Also, SOME of the plot twists were interesting--particularly the last 5 minutes of the film. In fact, the end redeemed the movie for me, though I don't want to spoil it for the reader.

Now, the bad. Although David Mamet is a very talented writer, as evidenced by his other movies, this film falls flat a lot. In particular, when it came to the psychologist, she is terribly written at times. Mamet continues a movie stereotype of a therapist being almost zombie-like as well as asking one question after another after another instead of listening to the patient and behaving "human". This really ISN'T how therapists are trained and Mamet SHOULD have done his homework. And, the idea of a straight-laced lady with a seething volcano hidden beneath the surface also seems a little bit like a cheap romance novel. In addition, while there were some twists and surprises, usually I found most of these to be awfully predictable.

So, overall, it's a diverting time-passer and that's about it.

Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a psychiatrist and a best selling writer. Her patient Billy Hahn is suicidal from his $25k gambling debts. She decides to help him by confronting his bookie Mike (Joe Mantegna). It turns out Billy only owes $800 and Mike is willing to forgive it if she does him a favor.

Director David Mamet has written a tight tensed thriller about cons and con-men. I have to admit that it was eye opening with the various cons when I first saw this. It's aged a little since then or maybe I've aged. The cons are no longer eye opening, but you can see them coming a mile away. Although, they're like old friends that you want to visit once in awhile.

The writing is still tightly wound. Lindsay Crouse has that cool demeanor. Sometimes still waters run deep, and her character has a dark side. Joe Mantegna has that dark scheming character down. For a first time directing effort, this was quite spectacular. His simplistic vision allows the actors to fill the screen. Luckily he had some great ones working here.