This movie is very interesting to watch and the characters are well-acted by Kathleen Turner and Tommy Lee Jones. The little girl is very convincing as well. It's a good movie, but people should know: this is not about autism.

I have an autistic daughter. Even in regressive autism, which is not that common, you don't just become autistic through emotional trauma, as this movie suggests. And you don't just stop talking one day. It's a progressive or, rather, regressive thing. And regressive autism takes place about age 2-3, not age 6. Her seeming imperviousness to danger is autistic-like and the screams when things change is something that can happen, but please don't come away from this movie thinking this is what autism is.

Many autistic children are not silent and do interact or try to. Take note of the scenes at the school with real autistic children to get a somewhat better picture.

This movie is more about emotional trauma than autism. Leading the viewer to believe otherwise is a tragic disservice. But what's worse is then leading the viewer to believe simple psychological intervention will "fix" autism.

The one good thing is that the movie shows autistics to be bright and very creative. If you want to learn something about autism, learn that.

This is one of the best movies I've seen and I'm shocked at the ratings it has received. I found it hidden in the back room at the video store because so few customers were checking it out. I agree that Tommy Lee Jones has been better in other movies but the story is excellent and the portrayal of the story is very well done. Please don't let the ratings keep you from deciding for yourself!

What an annoying yuppie movie. Seldom have I disliked a character as much as Kathleen Turner's mom. Tommy Lee Jones was totally wasted- having nothing to work with- except his frustration at a know it all mom. The only saving part of this movie was the young girl who was able to connect without using words.

I was hooked on the story, having many friends with autistic children. The acting was enjoyable and drew me in to the story but the end was unsatisfying for me. I wasn't quite sure what was happening toward the end of the film. The symbolism was not sufficiently supported by the storyline so as a viewer I was cast adrift to make my own interpretations.

The little girl was cute and played her part well as did her big brother. Tommy Lee's performance was a little uneven for me. I could see him straining to find his character at times. Ms Turner was as good as ever.

I am the father who wrote the original comments criticizing this movie for its use of autism. To address those who have said, sometimes rather heatedly, that it is obvious that the girl is NOT autistic and anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish (or at least has a short attention span) please consider this:

If it were obvious from the beginning of the movie that the girl is suffering from an odd denial response brought on by a shaman's comments, and not an identifiable disorder, then the bulk of the movie would be meaningless. What would be the point of all the medical scenes with the use of apparently handicapped (including autistic) children if the viewer already "knows" the girl's problem?

The girl displays very striking features of childhood autism, so on what basis is it reasonable that the mother should resist treatment? You can say: "you see, it wasn't really autism," but as a simple dramatic point they don't give anyone but the guileless moviegoer any reason to think otherwise.

People with handicapped children often wish that anyone giving them bad news is wrong, and that there is a simple "magic" cure for their child's disorder, and so the movie unintentionally gives very bad advice.

I feel it is shameful for the movie makers to have used a disability and disabled people as props for a feelgood story that denies reality as much as the little girl does.

I found the story engrossing and especially enjoyed how the characters put the pieces together as the movie progressed. I also thought parts of the soundtrack were excellent. There is one scene that has stayed with me years after I saw the flick.

This is not a documentary. One reason I rented the movie is my clinical experience with autistic children. If you are the kind of person who requires movies even tangentally reflect how it is in the real world then don't watch it. If you think Hollywood will educate the public about autism this movie will upset you.

This is a thinking person's movie.

I haven't been so disappointed since Bush got reelected. I was mainly interested in this movie because Tommy Lee Jones was in it, and I would have to say he did an admirable job with the senseless drivel he was forced to deliver. Kathleen Turner is not one of my favourites, but here I just wanted to reach in and strangle her. The whole thing was a spielbergesque schmaltzfest of embarrassing proportions, and what flabbergasts me is that so many people seem to embrace it on so many levels, as if it actually had something meaningful to say.

It is insulting that they should be able to take a condition such as autism (which the child doesn't have but the movie wants you to think she does) and trivialize it and make it the centrepiece of a maudlin, unrealistic dumbed down piece of soap drama.

The eponymous house of gravity-defying cards itself could not, by any stretch, have been built by a 6-year-old, or anyone else. The virtual reality simulations depicted were preposterous in 1993; today they are a ludicrous parody. Those are just a couple of the obvious technical failures.

I am quite prepared to suspend my notions of plausibility to allow artistic fulfillment, but that only works when it is needed as a vehicle to get the message through. There is no message here, it is just fatuous nonsense of the worst kind: Deliberate emotional manipulation of the sort that Mr. Spielberg is a master of.

This doesn't work on me, and I find it dismaying that it does seem to work on so many others, as shown here by how few reviewers were able to see through it. If you like having your intelligence insulted, then by all means, watch this.

I absolutely loved this movie. It is so different than any other movie I've seen (and I've seen plenty!). People who commented on this movie say that its not reality-that they didn't go into certain aspects of the "problems" at hand in the movie...well, that's what movies are all about. They take you to a different dimension that's not of this world. And this movie deals with taking us to a different world of a child going into a different world. And that, everyone, is what it's all about. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't want to see the same storyline used in 90% of all movies today, with a touch of dreamscape, and a whole lot of heart. Tommy Lee Jones is perfect as usual, as well as Kathleen Turner. WATCH IT!

"House of Cards" is such a murky film it's a wonder its makers would think it watchable. The plot, which involves a mother's journey to try to reach her young daughter after she has developed autistic-like characteristics, is hard nut to crack. To be fair there is a meek explanation for the child's behavior but it does not hold up. Even stage vet Kathleen Turner and the excellent Tommy Lee Jones can't save this film from the highly symbolic mess it is. It is hard to think of many serious films where one has not come to understand the characters and couldn't care less.

How a child, a very perceptive child, deals with the loss of her daddy. Without further comment, wonderful insight to a child's innocence. Artistic talents , inherent from her engineer mom, she has the galactic spiral down pat. Quiet since her daddy's fall to death as an archaeologist, her words are stuck in silence, in her awareness of the world around her and where she fits in it. Of course the adults in the movie, haven't a clue fir her apparent 'dumbness'. Test from society norms, prove Tommy Lee Jones, as always, Qudos. Hard to find it streaming from any major streaming service. Too bad too. Its a good one.

Everyone I know thinks this movie is weird, until I make them rewatch the beginning and pay close attention. Then they love it.

Whoever trashed this movie regarding the autism obviously did not watch it. The child was NOT austistic. She was trying to handle her father's death with things she learned from her Mayan archaeologist friend.

I think if you have any brain in your head and have an attention span large enough to actually watch the whole movie, it is thoroughly enjoyable.

Let's delve into a review of the 1993 film "House of Cards":

"House of Cards" is a perplexing cinematic endeavor that defies easy categorization. Directed by Michael Lessac, the film opens in Mexico, where Sally's parents, both scientists studying ancient ruins, meet a tragic fate. Her father's fall from a ruin leads to his demise. An enigmatic mystic informs Sally that the departed find their abode on the moon, and if she listens carefully, she can hear them.

Sally (played by Asha Menina) and her mother (Kathleen Turner) return to America, where Sally begins exhibiting symptoms of autism. She remains silent, reacting with loud, dissonant noises when her environment changes. Desperate to reach her, her mother takes her to a clinic run by Tommy Lee Jones, who diagnoses autism. But Sally's silence conceals a deeper purpose: she is listening for her deceased father.

In a remarkable attempt to communicate, Sally constructs an intricate tower of cards-a soaring architectural marvel that appears to defy the laws of physics. The Turner character deciphers Sally's intent: she is trying to connect with her mother. Inspired, she designs her own tower using computer-aided design (CAD) software and builds it from plywood. The computer scenes, while abundant, lack meaningful impact.

The actual tower, however, resembles something any resourceful child's mother could construct for well under $100,000. As the mother and child ascend the tower, its symbolism reverberates-a desperate climb toward understanding and connection.

Tommy Lee Jones, despite a baffling character, delivers intensity and concern. His scenes remain intriguing, even if their connection to the rest of the film remains elusive. Unfortunately, the movie as a whole defies explanation. It lacks interest, intelligence, plausibility, and entertainment value. The synopsis is so absurd that it seems unproduceable, yet it exists.

In summary, "House of Cards" is an enigma-an inexplicable cinematic venture that leaves viewers puzzled and searching for meaning. If you're drawn to unconventional narratives and symbolic towers, this film might intrigue you, but be prepared for a journey into the inexplicable.

During the setup of the story I thought that I knew where this one was going. I nearly gave up, disgusted by what I thought was coming. Then Ruth made some comments on specialists and I knew that we were dealing with something special. This is not a movie for those intent on convincing themselves that their self-protectiveness is the ultimate virtue. If you measure life's success by things that are amenable to counting, such as the number of breaths drawn, or by how one can arrive at the point of death having avoided as much pain as possible, stay away. This movie is a celebration of life, not an attempt to glorify the suburban Stepford zombie imitation that most people so zealously seek. Share this movie with philosophical friends. It should provide a springboard to much pleasurable conversation.

I for one LOVED this movie! there are some awesome scenes and to share it would ruin watching the movie.

basically the childs parents are arhciologists and her father dies at a dig site. they are living in south America and the girl has a friend who is friends of the family he tells her her father is in the moon. shes a child so she believes it.

the mother not knowing what to do with her self decides to take the girl back to America.. (bad move on my thought the girl just lost her father and now suffers culture shock!) but thats what makes a movie right? so they go back to America severing the young girl from all of her safety zones and she naturally withdraws into herself. however she withdraws so completely she no longer communicates with the outside world she does some AMAZING things. anyway i love this movie yes I'm vague. because you have to see the movie totally get the grasp of it. the comment above me did nothing more than bash one of my most loved movies. and you should pay it no mind they obviously had a bad day at the time of writing the review. which is what a blog is for not a imd! any who i really love this movie and think you should try it out!

I prefer to see it as a poetic film. I teach in classes with autistic students, I was confronted with some cases . But, in same measure I am seduced by fairy tales. The death of father can reate strong refuges. And, in this film, the refuge is just well projected. Because it is a film about a six years old girl, in touch with Mayan myth - a myth reminding the stories about the rabbit on the moon from my childhood - admirable acting, moving end . A film about truth, with few unrealistic pink parts but real nice for understand, in fair manner, the other.

This review is meant to offer 2 overlooked, and hopefully to some, important points about this film; 1, my take on a viewpoint about a common defect in psychology, frequently "criticized" in film story lines (One Flew Over The Cukokoo's Nest"); and 2, an important point other reviewers may have missed about the native-American in the high-rise construction scene. Number two first: I'm guessing the writer was trying to share the unique and valuable reputation that the Mohican tribe has gained over the decades as having some form of inborn special talent as iron workers and incomparable abilities to work at great heights with amazing balance and self-confidence. If one believes in the ability of children to read more about the intangible side of people than adults can then the writers selecting a such a scene to share with viewers about Mohicans also shows the child's ability to connect with another person who shared her lack of fear for heights, besides just this mans color of skin (similar to what she had experienced at the archaeological site where this child's father was killed in a falling accident). On point number one, since I have worked with so-called mentally disconnected people, I have NOT always found them as "out-of-it" as professionally claimed. That once famous British psychiatrist C.J. Laing, had a lot to say about this area of so-called "normality". Therefore for me, I found myself back in an argumentative mood with some of the things I used to do in the early 60's that also had unexpected success and for me this WAS the main point the film tried to make. That is this; the difference in the approach of the DR. versus the mom to "bring Sally back" can be summed-up so simply; he was trying to force Sally to come-back to normalcy on HIS terms while the mom was trying to LEAD Sally back by trying to discover how to meet her IN her world on HER terms, if SHE was ready. Take the mom's figuring out what the two boys were REALLY doing who just were exchanging 5 digit numbers as ALL they could converse about. The mom tuned-in quietly went home, input these numbers in the computer and the next day was able to fully join the boys in their conversation, which really upset the arrogant Dr. who himself could have previously done the same at any time and so STILL didn't have a clue. Those who've read and appreciated C.J. Laing, may really have an extra appreciation for this movies as well as those who believe in being way more careful about the human-freedom-rights of so-called mental patients by first exercising a little more intuition and empathy before applying their force and trickery to mandate, NOW, their coming-back to a world they had chosen to leave! Instead try to meet them with love, in their world to see if they are ready to be led back and if not ready yet at least one can try again later and be there when they are ready. I