Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.

This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker/Stu Ungar craze. The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end. If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind.

What is it about certain films that generates such polar opposite reactions?Some people here have called High Roller "disgusting." Some have called it "extraordinary" (as would I, actually).Why? I think it's because films like this don't make heroes out of jerks, or glamour out of degeneration, and some people just can't deal with that emotionally. They NEED a hero. And I'd also add that if they're gamblers or poker players, they might feel personally betrayed when their existence isn't justified.High Roller in NOT a poker movie. It's a PEOPLE movie. It's not perfect, but it looks good, is well-written, and wonderfully acted. And best of all, it generates an emotional response and inspires reflection.And maybe that's what makes some people so damn mad.

An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.