Highball

If this were a student film, I would understand, but it's not. The director takes a pseudonym because, well at least I believe, because it's an experiment gone very wrong. I'll make a list

1. The lighting, blunt, bullying, washout. It's almost unnerving to watch as if a science fiction.

2. No story served with a never ending plate of hit or miss bon mots. I call it self-indulgent. I won't lie to you and say there aren't flashes of wit and charm... there are, but I find that this film is very much like what it shows: a person who tries too hard and has you cornered at a party.

3. The set... it's soooo dark. Why? Do you want me to have a nervous breakdown instead of laughing which is the intent I assume.

4. Noah Bambaugh has made me laugh a lot in his other films. All the while, I felt that he had the potential to go off the rails into the realm of pretentiousness, banal, insufferable New York upper east/west side intellectual hipster dreck. In the previous films he created memorable, earnest characters and a plot. Not this time... without story you are left with nothing.

That Ernie Fusco! What a character! He makes such funny films! HIGHBALL is no exception. I love this witty, underlit, six-day wonder so much! If you've seen any of Fusco's other films, then you know what you're in for. Just one question, who the heck is Noah Baumbach? See this movie. It'll make you want to be a big lizard next Halloween.

Okay, now this is a very funny movie...if you can appreciate its brand of humor. If big-budget Hollywood comedies are your bag, and you need a bunch of sight gags and constant over-the-top situations in order to laugh, then you'll probably see this movie as a boring, poorly-made waste of time. But it's not...and if you're a fan of stage plays or older-style comedy films (before the attention span of the average film-goer plummeted), then you'll certainly get some laughs from this outing.

Filmed on a shoestring budget over six shooting days, this film is an impressive result. If it had been shot in three months, and had turned out the way it had, it wouldn't seem quite as impressive...but it would still be a funny movie. What I'm saying here is that not only is it a good comedy, it's also one of those rare films that's shot quickly, for very little money, and STILL manages to shine.

As a filmmaker, I would have never attempted to shoot a comedy on such a tight schedule, with so little money. Comedies are very tricky...by comparison, dramas are much easier...at least in my mind. But this little no-budget comedic gem packs in enough laughs to please fans of stage comedies and classic cinematic comedies. Truly an impressive film which delivered more than I'd expected it to.

I just watched this film and I was amazed at what an effect It had on me. It was very funny and weird, but most of all it was true. The writing was sharp and often hilarious, but the performances are what really pull it off. I often say that Chris Eigeman steals any movie he is in, but it doesn't happen in this movie. All the actors hit the right mark to create something that is rare in current independant films. No one in this film over or under acts. If you love dialogue driven comedies with some fine nuanced perfomances (ie Whit Stillman, kicking & screaming) you'll enjoy this flick.

A small group of friends attend three different parties spread months apart. Some funny bits, some funny gags, but the film feels incomplete. I choose to attribute the good parts to Noah Baumbach, not out of liking his other work, as I have yet to see his "Kicking and Screaming" film (heard nothing but good things though), but rather because I REALLY want "The Life Aquatic" to be great. And I pin the blame of the bad scenes on the shoulders of Christopher Reed, because..well because the man made "The Sixth Man" 'nuff said. The acting is good all around though. Kudos to that.

My Grade:C+

Where i saw it: Showtime