High

I saw most this movie just last night on TV, and I thought it was great.

As a 20something, I liked the 60s cinema black and white, the touch of colour at the end was interesting.

Perhaps the plot is weak as the other poster said, I didn't watch it from the start, but I found it really interesting and relaxing, and a totally different style of film than i'd seen.

I felt the movie really got across the pot-smoked atmosphere it was trying to describe.

It's not nearly as bad as the other review said, if you're interested in seeing an art porno from the 60s.

Okay, it's not that bad. But this movie, directed by the ultimate "60's-Canada-product-of-time" director, Larry Kent is one of the worst movies to come out of the Dominion of Canada.

The plot is almost non-existant, something about a Finnish ambassador and a bunch of credit cards. It is shot mostly in black and white, except that one part where the chick models, and it gets all orange and tilty. It has a documentary feel, and if the NFB actually funded this, every person in Canada who has ever watched a movie should commit suicide.

The young couple wanders around, see the sites of Montreal, get High, party, wear 60's clothing, and have sex. High is a laughable effort, and certainly Kent's worst.

This was a great Canadian movie again for it's time and budget. Considering when this movie was shot Kent does some remarkable work with the photography in order to paint the psychedelic theme he was going for. The constant 60s psychedelic music playing through out this movie adds to the allure and the charm of this.

This film was a great pioneer of the romantic crime genre in my opinion and helped to pave the way for some later movies. Although to some this film may have lacked the modern standards for most films of this genre, keeping in mind that this film was shot in 1967 and was banned from the Quebec Film Festival because of the provocative nature of the film.

I also appreciate the way that High portrays the great liberating spirit of both men and women in the 60s. Their was a true appreciation for liberty and freedom being expressed in the film whether wrongly placed or not. This was one of this first films that I saw accurately portraying this of the time.

The movie does show a few week points in both script and acting ability and perhaps and little too much time spent upon the sex scenes which some may view as a delving into a pornographic film. But I believe that the film was meant to raise eyebrows of the time and push the limit of film.

All in all for an 'indie' film of it's time I would say that Kent did a pretty good job of this movie and the there were some spectacular shots in the film. So I'm going to give this an 8 out of 10.