I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

I caught this movie on a lazy Sunday morning. I admit I had never heard of Stu Ungar, but this film made me want to learn more about him. Michael Imperioloi is fabulous as Stu, as are all the supporting characters. The film presents Stu as just a nice Jewish boy from NY - a sweet, moral guy really, but a guy with a bad addiction. How he manages to rise to the heights of his profession, then fall, over and over, makes for a terrific character study.I'm surprised by people who say this movie is horrible, dreadful, etc. Its fantastic, and I'm not even interested in gambling or gamblers. Its really about addiction, and how it can destroy a tremendous talent, whatever that talent may be.High Roller is so much better than Casino, which overplays its hand, so to speak, with over the top violence, one dimensional characters, drawn out marital spats, stereotyped situations. High Roller has some of that also, but in smaller doses and a very watchable 110 minutes. Imperioli lifts the whole film up with his well-rounded performance of Stu.Don't listen to the critics. High Roller is as satisfying as a great episode of The Sopranos.

You would have thought that this biographical film about Stu Unger (one of the greatest card players ever) had great dramatic potential, but this movie turns out to be a most undramatic undertaking. The plot device is to have Unger sit on a bed in some fleabag motel room and tell his story to a "mysterious stranger." The story is told in linear flashbacks inter-cut with *much* talk in the motel room. I always get suspicious when a screenwriter has a character talk about himself rather than being able to formulate a scene to more effectively make the point, or at least have the character talking within the context of a scene rather than talking about a scene.This is a movie about a person and his profession. We get a lot of stuff about the person - teased kid, difficult father, marriage, child, divorce, drugs - but not much about the profession. As presented this is the life's arc of a not atypical contemporary American and it is not all that interesting. The focus should not be on why this guy was ordinary but rather why he was extraordinary. This is like offering a biography of Einstein but never drawing us in with an understanding of his professional accomplishments and his genius. Many opportunities are missed to provide some excitement, tension, and interest. At least some intense build-up should have been given to Unger's winning his first World Series of Poker, climaxed with his going head-to-head with poker legend Doyle Brunson. That scene was disappointingly uninspired. My god, how could they flub that so badly?A political party will play to its base and why this movie failed so miserably to play to its base of poker players is a mystery. Maybe it did not want to glorify gambling, and it does not, but using Unger as a poster boy for the evils of gambling is misguided - he was such an unusual person that drawing any general conclusions is questionable. In any case most drug addicts will not fare well at the tables and the fact that Unger could come back to win the WSOP in 1997 is an amazing feat. It has always puzzled me why passionate professional gamblers are considered addicts and cast in a negative light, but those who pursue other professions to the exclusion of most all else are accorded esteem.Some have honored this film for not sugarcoating Ungar's slide toward addiction and death. But from reading about Ungar's life it sounds like his womanizing, surly behavior, and drug use were much worse than portrayed. In fact I got more from reading the wikipedia entry on Ungar than I did from this film, so go there if you want to save yourself some time.Never having seen "The Sopranos" I had never seen any of these actors before and my reaction was, "not bad, but not great."If you want to see a much more perceptive character study of a gambler, see Philip Seymore Hoffman in the under-appreciated "Owning Mahoney."

This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.This movie is worth renting.

By many accounts, Stu Ungar was not a very nice guy. He spat on dealers, stiffed people he owed money to, and was verbally abusive. Many filmmakers might choose to sugarcoat the man, making him into some sports hero that would triumph despite adversity. But High Roller doesn't do that. And that's a tough row to hoe.Instead, we have to look VERY closely to see a man that never matured passed the frightened little boy from the streets of New York, despite all his successes. And the only real approval he ever gets is from death himself. Very brave (because people won't get it) and very touching (when you do).What is also brave is the use of a Scorsese feel. "Aha! How derivative," people will say. Really? But there's virtually no violence. And Stuey LOVED gangster movies. Maybe the feel reflects the man Stu and not the director Marty? And if it really is a low budget film and looks that good, bravo!Finally, the linear flashback structure. Wow, will that get hammered. Yet, not only does it work, it works exceptionally well, even for those who don't see the connection to the "Seventh Seal." (PROOF: In SS, Knight plays game of chess with death: In HR, Stuey says "We can play a hand of cards for, ya know"... Death says "Never much good at cards.." Damn great last line.)No tricky effects or camera moves. No shaky camera. Nothing trendy at all. Just solid, tight storytelling.Maybe that makes the movie too basic and somehow flawed. But then again, so was the guy. And that makes it just about right.9/10