This film is utterly incredible. Just finished watching it and it's definitely one I thoroughly recommend. I can't believe I went so long without watching it. Gabriel Byrne gives a performance for the ages in my opinion. This film does not get talked about with the same level of adoration as other gangster movies. Even though this film is so much more than that.
This has always been in my top 5. When John Turturro is begging for his life in the woods and crying “Look into your heart” over and over - it’s one of the best scenes I’ve ever seen.
Ebert is complaining that it isn't clear at the beginning. It isn't, but it's all clear at the end. You just have to give the story time to tell itself. It may have been too early in their career for Ebert to trust the Coens to tell a story.
Ebert missed on this review. Miller's Crossing is a gem. This was not film making by committee like so much of today's drivel. M.C. was about as close to an art house movie as Hollywood could make.
**spoiler but it’s worth pointing out why Ebert was wrong** Why did the two other gangsters (Frankie and Tic Tac) not bother to witness or check on Tom walking Bernie out to the woods to murder him, trusting that the sound of the gunfire was sufficient to convince them that Tom indeed killed Bernie? Because Tom told Johnnie and the Dane where Bernie was! Not only that, but Tom went with Frankie and Tic Tac to pick up Bernie from his hotel hideout, and drove all of them to the woods! At that point, Johnnie’s gangsters knew that Tom was willing to give up Bernie to at least them, expressly for the purpose of being killed, and Tom was also a willing accessory to the murder by driving them to the woods. They were careless sure, but it’s totally acceptable storytelling that they would be lazy enough to not bother walking from the road to the woods and back because they trusted Tom to do the job, knowing he was totally ok with *_someone_* killing Bernie. If Ebert considers scenarios like these to be so unrealistic that it bothers him- to the point he’s trying to convince Siskel that Siskel also has a problem with the film- I can’t imagine how many other movies with minor “jeez why did they do that, but ok” scenes got ruined for him by having an unreasonably high standard for characters’ decision making
watched the film for the first time tonight. Completley agree. Once Tom gav up Bernie, all that was left to do was shoot him and swap sides. That they even went back to check for Bernie's dead body cancels out the possibility that they were 'lazy' gangsters. The film's most sublime twist is that we never actually know what Tom's motives for anything beyond paying off his own debts is. At the start he want to 1) pay off his own debt 2) he emoves himself from all people willing to do this for him 3) he gets money out of a man's pocket [to pay back his debt] whilst gaining back the trust of his old boss (he doesn't apologise for cheating with his boss's fiance as a means to go back to the crime world) 4) He *pays his ethical and financial debt* by attending Bernie's funeral and the film ends. *brilliant*.
And later on we see that the Dane best up Frankie and tic tack for NOT going to check if he had actually shot Bernie....and this clown clearly missed that Bernie brought Mink out into the woods and killed him so that there WOULD be a body there. Granted it might have taken me five watchings of the movie to realize all this, but it's a movie you have to use your brain for, not just sit there with your thumb up your ass
Agree they missed the whole point that Tom couldn't kill Bernie himself IMO because he loved Verna. Tom lost his head(which is why he kept losing his hat) over Verna and was ruled by his heart. When he says to Verna "And there's nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat.", his brogue makes it sound suspiciously like 'his heart'. It's deliberate. It what the whole movie is about.
Ebert made the same mistake with The Natural. The movie outraged him for a few reasons that I couldn't believe would bother a critic. The first was making the mistake of thinking the movie was about baseball. The second was his disbelief that Roy Hobbs could hit a home run while bleeding out. I was watching that review with my brother and when Ebert was finished I turned to him and said, "Didn't Roger Ebert go to college? Hasn't he read any medieval English literature like the grail stories? I mean, come on! The manager's name is 'Pop Fisher!' Their team is the 'Knights'! Hobbs is the Christ figure that sacrifices everything to save the team, even to the point of being pierced for their transgressions!" Etc. etc. My brother's high opinion of Ebert didn't survive how bad that review was.
This is by far the best Coen Brothers film. Gabriel Byrne should of won a Oscar for this role. And, Ebert was wrong about his view of this film. I know No Country is also a great movie, but this one is a cut above most gangster movies except for the The Godfather and Goodfellas...A perfect script, good direction and actors who where perfect for their roles.
The performances from Byrne,Polito and Turturro are all brilliant. The score,sets, costumes,it all fits The era and Coens idiosyncracies are just so perfect for it,their dialog is qoutable all the way and the whole script is genius. Yeah,this is probably their best movie. It always felt ahead of or out its time and the academy ignoring such great work should be criminal. And PS,I really thought it was Deakins who shot it,its that good but it was actually director Barry sonnenfeld.
For me, this is the most superficial and underwhelming Coen Brothers. No good dark humor, the characters aren't compelling, and the story is too convoluted.
Ebert said the story started wrong because of all the names that were mentioned in the dialogue, people we dont know so we dont feel any relation to them. And that is true..but if you watch Millers Crossing for (lets say) the third time and you already know all those characters..then you realize how brilliant this film actually is Same with Fargo. It gets better everytime you watch it. And like Millers Crossing, the story of Fargo also started with a lot of detail and names
They miss the mark by categorizing this as a gangster movie, and then measuring it by those standards. It's a movie about gangsters, but the sub-genre is noir, especially when it comes to the plot.
I just watched the Hudsucker Proxy and wow, I ended up loving it! The low Rotten Tomato score from the initial reviews 30 years ago set me up for some low expectations, but damn I though that film was hilarious! I think it often takes a few years for these films to “age” where people then realize how good they are.
It's a perfect parody of film noir/gangster: filming and acting techniques in particular, also film noir character and script tropes. And all that on top of very solid script. Ebert somehow didn't catch any of that and I find that hilarious.
It's one of my favorites. As a dumb 20-year-old when I first rented it, I was confused and unable to keep up. But the film is so incredibly great that in my tenth or fifteenth viewing, I finally got it figured out. Each time I re-watch it I find something new to appreciate. As for the Two goons not checking for the corpse the first time, they paid for it when Eddie Dane beats them up for not doing so.
I'm like you, and I was about the same age when I first saw it. I didn't really have the capacity for it at 18-19, but, like I recognized with William Faulkner's fiction or with Shakespeare as a child, I knew it was special, and I made a years-long effort to understand it.
It's a stupid question by Ebert. The plausibility has been established because Byrne's character is the one who in the previous scene led them to Bernie.
I'm surprised neither mentioned the source material for the plot, Dashiell Hammett's novels Red Harvest and The Glass Key. Both had convoluted plots. In that sense, the film wasn't as original as Siskel said. But the acting and the dialogue in this film was brilliant.
Ebert's review was beyond ridiculous, he's been proven wrong as the film endures as a classic also all the characters come clearly into focus as the movie progresses. The opening is magnificent the old Irish gangster doesn't know it but he's about to be supplanted as boss of the underworld. One of my all time favorite movies, great characters and the dialogue making this a great film.
How has his subjective opinion been proven “wrong”? I just watched Miller’s Crossing for the first time and I completely agree with Ebert’s criticisms. Personally I think Blood Simple is a far greater film. But I still understand why people love Miller’s Crossing
@@123rockfan Yeah, when you go at it with bizarre nitpicking. The two characters he has a problem with are lazy idiots, as Siskel says, there is nothing wrong with that. To have that (along with childish complaints about the length of things and how not enough is explained to him) be the crux of his argument, that is triteness. He often had to come back and get his reviews right after watching years later because he was so habitually obtuse, yes.
@@naysayer1238 I agree with Ebert that having characters incessantly talk about other characters that we don’t care about or haven’t seen yet in the film is incredibly tedious and frustrating to watch.
I find it weird that in every Siskel and Ebert review, people always comment “Ebert got it wrong” or “Siskel got it wrong”. How about they just have a different opinion? I’ve come to the realization that a lot of Siskel and Ebert fans aren’t particularly open minded to other people’s subjective opinions
I think it’s more the fact that this was reviewed before the Coens had established their voice in cinema. It easy to overlook films like this at first glance 30 years ago
Looks like Siskel liked it, but Ebert didn't get it. I've seen bits and pieces of it over the years. Now that Criterion has it out I'm going have to sit down and watch it.
Ebert didn’t give a bad review. He recommended it. He just liked it more for technical aspects than dramatic aspects. I love it, but I get some of his points.
The odd occurrence where I'm on Siskel's side, and Ebert is way off the mark. However, I will say I did not "get" this film the very first time I saw it. It takes a couple viewings to really catch everything, and get a proper understanding for the particular type of dialogue.
Yes, it's written like a play. The dialogue is scintillating. Jon Polito's rants and Byrnes cynical one-liners feel like they come from another cinematic era they are so good.
The crispness of the dialogue is what always makes me laugh when watching this movie. The scenes work even if you don't get the comedic elements, but it so much better if you do. This is a fantastic movie. Definitely the most underrated of all the Coen brothers films.
*spoiler alert* When they go looking for the body in the woods, the body they discover is Mink (Steve Buscemi), killed and placed there by Bernie. Duh.
You find the odd thing in Coen Brothers movies that take some figuring out. I know I do. For example it took me a few watches to understand how the disc ended up on the gym floor in Burn After Reading. And occasionally you’ll get stuff that isn’t even answered, such as Audrey’s death in Barton Fink. But the cause of Mink’s death is obvious, practically admitted by Bernie himself, and one of the least confusing things to understand in this film. How Ebert missed that baffles me.
Yeah, yeah.... There are some credibility issues with the convoluted plot but, jesus h christ... This is one of the most entertaining movies ever, and I mean EVER, made. It needs to be seen twice (at least) if only to catch and release the 1920's jargon. It's crazy that Miller's Crossing and Goodfellas came out the same day. Because they both represent the epitome of the gangster film in totally different ways.
I've seen it many times, and it never fails me. The movie has 6 great actors and several really good ones in smaller roles. I don't know if anyone else sees it, but to me, the Gabriel Byrne character's subtly played moral struggle w/ the world he's in has an epic literary dimension I have not seen in many movies.
Curious that the fellas don't realize that Miller's Crossing is (kinda) a remake of The Glass Key. Also they don't mention (or just miss) the love triangle between Mink, The Dane, and Bernie which just complicates the plot further.
That sequence is beautifully scripted and I'll bet it was storyboarded, it just has that flow to it. The hitmen's feet walking upstairs, Leo putting out his cigar and putting his feet in the slippers, all the way to the tommy gun shootout on his front lawn...the way it progresses is genius.
My jaw dropped when they went to check in the woods later in the film and found a body. Dark comedy with elements of Surrealism. The cyclical nature of the dialogue and storytelling was amazing. An utterly unique gangster movie. I love the Coen bros. If you understand their angle on cinema, you will adore this movie.
I remember seeing this movie first as a teenager. Had almost no clue what was happening in the story but I really liked it, and in that sense I can understand why Ebert didn't like the movie as much, but when I later rewatched it I realized that (like when I first saw it) you don't really even need to pay attention to the story at all because the atmosphere and dialogue and acting and set pieces are all fantastic. Though when you DO figure out what's happening in the story it really elevates the movie even more.
I think both of them do make good points, but I think what really sticks out is when Siskel says "it challenges you", which it seems Ebert missed. I also think the movie benefits from multiple viewings, which I think Ebert would have liked it more the second time around.
@@ForlornFreddy Lol “self correct”. You realize that film is subjective right? I think Miller’s Crossing is a good film, but quite flawed in some of its writing and execution. However, I would never say that someone who likes everything in this movie is wrong. Contrary, it’s ridiculous to think everyone should like Miller’s Crossing.
@@123rockfan He doesn’t have to like it as much as I do. However, the (somewhat) moronic premise of this show is either a thumbs up or thumbs down review i.e. a tacit endorsement to see or avoid a particular movie. In this case, Ebert doesn’t recommend people see it which is, in my opinion, a disservice to moviegoers who often clamor for originality.
my god, Ebert hated Raising Arizona too. That doesn't play well for Ebert all these years later, a big miss. RIP to Roger though, no hate, just a critical disagreement
Ive watched this movie at least 4 times and it gets better everytime. I understand its not action packed for some viewers, and i even get lost in the dialogue based on the era. I really hope others give it a couple rewatches.
I just watched it finally. I rather enjoyed it but I do understand the criticism of figuring out whats going on. Coen's make some of my favorite movies but I this definitely highlights some of their more armature work.
@@brianthornber3319 "getting it right." what an idiotic smug fucking thing to say. There's no getting movies right. you either like it or don't. such a fucking childish dork you are.
@@lionelmessi4953 I agree... maybe saying Ebert is being a bit stubborn which I could see but not everything is for everyone thats god honest truth. there is no such thing as "getting it right" in film thats just a ridiculous statement that Mr.3319 should remove from his brain
I hope Ebert ended up rewatching this movie, there’s too much to take in on a first viewing. I only recently got that the body in the woods was Steve Buscemi character that John Turturro killed. Man this review was sad also the opening monologue is awesome it’s sets up Leo and Casper’s characters right from the beginning
Ebert didn't get it. That's ok. Tik Tak didn't either. . .2 in the Head and one in the heart. Easy Peasey. It was the mink layin with his brains blown out . . . . And the shmatta Kid got the same at the end. . Jesus Tom
I've found Ebert is off on a lot of important movies. He gave passes to insipid block-busters but tended to go hard on creative films. He would find something about them that 'bugged' him. This was such a strikingly original film, its hard to imagine him nit-picking it the way he did.
@@4zafinc So, your 'defense' is that he has 'openly admitted' being inconsistent. Well, case closed. I agree. Also petulant. But he's in his grave now, I hold him in measured esteem - you can go back into the woodwork now.
Roger Ebert, who is a real blowhard in this review, couldn't easily slot it into a category, so he dismisses it. I had to watch it a couple of times (okay, 3 or 4) before I got all of the nuances. But never did the film "go on and on and on" until it leached out all pleasure. Quite the reverse! But of course, the two dumbbell assassins didn't go back to check that the guy was really dead. They weren't supposed to be terribly bright. And this failure set up what followed. I wanted to yell at Ebert here. Thank you, Siskel, who got it.
Theyre gangsters. They obviously trusted Tom to do the job. They weren’t gonna just walk into the middle of the forest and check. 😂 They told Tom to do it because Leo had asked. They weren’t gonna override Leo’s integrity. They also said to Tom. ‘One bullet puts him down and then you put one in his skull’ so Ebert saying ‘They heard 2 gunshots! What does that mean!’ was just ignorant. It’s a pretty air tight screenplay to be honest.
They talk about that aspect of their lives in only veiled ways, likely the way it would have been spoken about back then. It took me multiple viewings to pick up on it too.
@@DixiePokerAce Johnny says that exactly to Leo, but I took that as “Mink is Dane’s son”. Bernie and Mink talk about their relationship trying to keep it as innocent as possible: “We’re *amigos*” or “saving me from my *friends*.” Verna too: “just because he’s different”, referring to Bernie being gay. Everyone is being very subtle. And people often use “boy” to refer to someone’s son: “that’s my boy” or “Mink is Eddie Dane’s boy”. Seems strange in a movie about a time when homosexuality was considered taboo for Johnny to say about his bodyguard directly to Leo, casually but with explicit meaning, ‘Mink is Dane’s gay lover’. Wonder if there were any other hints in the movie about Mink/Dane
@@micmackman4444 The actor was gay in real life 😂 let alone the movie 😂 also not all gays are feminine acting like Vito from the Sopranos or Omar from The Wire
That was a strange review because it didn't seem that they fully understood the plot of the movie it's one of the reasons why I don't really like critics because I think they become lazy and just mail it in so to speak
Roger Ebert missed the boat on this one, just because it can't easily be slotted into a character study. He just didn't get it. But today, it's hailed as a modern classic. The two guys who didn't go check on the murder were a plot device; they were incompetent. They HAD to screw that up, so the plot could unfold.
I remember watching this on TV and deciding to go see this movie because 1/ It's a Coen Bros. movie and 2/ Siskel said it was good and I trusted him. And he had just the right answer here to the two guys not checking the body dilemma: the juxtaposition it set up was that the Italian goons were incompetent but Tom was not only smart but extremely competent and capable. Ebert just missed all that.
Haven't seen this movie. Watched the trailer (and this review for nostalgia's sake) because someone mentioned how good it was. I can't judge it. However, if you have a plot hole that makes no sense in order to force a certain circumstance later on, that's generally bad writing.
Hey Ebert, why don't you take your flunkie opinion and dangle. (I usually agree with the guy, but sometimes he's so weirdly wrong. They didn't check for the body first time cuz they knew Tom, thought he'd go through with it. Plus, they're lazy.)
They never showed Siskel and Ebert in my country so I don't really know them. But roger Ebert seems like a big twat and is totally wrong about millers crossing.
Yeah this was not one of Ebert's good reviews. There were some real banger movies that he just didn't get. The ones that amaze me the most in how wrong they are would be this one (Miller's Crossing) and his review of The Natural. Ebert thought the movie was about baseball and that's why it didn't work for him. But baseball is just the vehicle the movie uses for a journey to redemption.
Right. It wasn’t a hard concept to understand Bernie killed Mink and made up his body to look like it was his. Not sure why they had a problem figuring that out lol
TV was not a good medium for these two. I remember saving written reviews by Roger Ebert because of their thoughtfulness not just about a particular movie, but of moviegoing as an experience and of life in general. He was an impressive writing critic. As we see here, when having to speak to fit into a time slot he comes across as arrogant. A pity, really.
VERY true. The problem was the FORMAT. Ebert's and Siskel's reviews (Ebert's especially) were very well written and thoughtful and nuanced. The problem with the whole "thumbs up" TV format is that they had less than a minute, really, to "discuss" the movie before rushing into the next one. But when you read their reviews - as said, especially Ebert's, as he was a great writer - they involve much more reasoning. That said, like any critics, they were often very wrong about certain films.
@@lynnturman8157 Miller's Crossing is probably their most underrated movie. I know the Big Lebowski and Fargo get all the attention, but in terms of script, direction, writing and acting. Miller's Crossing is the top of the game for the Coen Brothers.
@@danielstoddart I agree. Love Miller's Crossing & Big Lebowski. Fargo's okay but is overrated, IMO. Probably my third favorite of theirs is Hudsucker Proxy.
Completely agree with Ebert that the first half is frustrating. A lot of characters talking about other characters that we don’t care about. Thankfully though, the movie really picks up, I think the last half is incredible.
The problem for me is that a lot of characters in Miller's Crossing talk about characters that we don't see. I wanted to care about the characters, but the film broke the "show, don't tell" rule. We hear about the characters, but it's very confusing because we don't see them until they're in other scenes. Gabriel Byrne and Albert Finny might talk about 3 different characters, and then Gabriel Byrne goes and meets up when them one by one. And each of these meetups: more talking about characters that are not in the same room. The movie gave me a headache. It's not as bad as Hail, Caesar! but I think it's the Cohn Brothers 2nd worst film. If you want to see a similar gangster film that is much better, just watch Road to Perdition instead.
Miller's Crossing is a great film -- which I've seen many times over -- but I do agree with Ebert that there were scenes that could have been shorter. And it's still my second fav Gabriel Byrne movie...next to Usual Suspects.
Eddie Dane could have been shorter. It's the Coen Bros best film. Closely followed in descending order by: Barton Fink, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men and The Man who wasn't there
I love Siskel and Ebert but I think the idea that you must be farmiliar with old gangster movies to understand this one isn’t true. I think it’s very complex but it’s not a genre whatever whatever
While there are some amazing scenes in Miller’s Crossing, I think the movie overall is just pretty good. Your opinion about this being one of the best movies ever made, is definitely the minority. Also, not sure why you’re labeling Ebert as frustrated, simply because he has a different opinion
@@123rockfan Fair enough … I guess I was a bit angsty because I think one of the best things about the Cohen brothers is their ear for language. I think their dialogue is one their strongest points in their film making.
@@123rockfan And re Ebert and frustration, anyone is entitled to their opinions, but I'm always unimpressed by critics being destructive and negative of a work of art they would be never be capable of creating themselves.
@@patrickpaganini ok that’s a ridiculous statement. The argument “you make a better movie then” is really lame. And extremely lazy. I agree with Ebert that the dialogue in the first half is way too expository. If I was a professional critic, it would be completely fair for me to make that criticism. It’s not “destructive”. It’s being a critic who analyzes a piece of work subjectively.
Damn… never seen this before (I used to watch Siskel and Ebert when they were on TV). My problem with Ebert’s review is that he comes off so closed-minded, as if only his opinion matters, even challenging Siskel with whether or not a scene makes sense. Seems to me that Ebert just “didn’t get it.” I’m willing to bet that after the Coens became more renowned by critics, Ebert regretted having this review on record.
Hey, jawboy, it's not THAT complicated . . . if you can think at all. And this movie isn't reality. Liam O'Bannon was knocked off by Al Capone; this is not NY, it's not Chicago, it's Hollywood.
"Don't get me wrong. There is a lot here to admire. Albert Finney is especially good as Leo, the crime boss, and Jon Polito is wonderful as Johnny Caspar, his rival, who keeps talking about "business ethics." One of the most interesting characters in the movie is Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro), a two-timing bookie who pleads for his life in a monologue that he somehow keeps afloat long past any plausible dramatic length. The pleasures of the film are largely technical. It is likely to be most appreciated by movie lovers who will enjoy its resonance with films of the past. What it doesn't have is a narrative magnet to pull us through -- a story line that makes us really care what happens, aside from the elegant but mechanical manipulations of the plot." Ebert - October 5, 1990
This film is utterly incredible. Just finished watching it and it's definitely one I thoroughly recommend. I can't believe I went so long without watching it. Gabriel Byrne gives a performance for the ages in my opinion. This film does not get talked about with the same level of adoration as other gangster movies. Even though this film is so much more than that.
This has always been in my top 5. When John Turturro is begging for his life in the woods and crying “Look into your heart” over and over - it’s one of the best scenes I’ve ever seen.
Ebert gave it the high hat.
LOL
Sure did didn’t he?
And he shouldn’ta done that
Long Attention Span Theatre
@@perniciouspete4986 He should have taken it on the heel and toe.
Ebert is complaining that it isn't clear at the beginning. It isn't, but it's all clear at the end. You just have to give the story time to tell itself. It may have been too early in their career for Ebert to trust the Coens to tell a story.
As if any David Lynch movie is clear from the outset... or by its end, for that matter.
Miller's Crossing is my favorite film of all time. Absolutely brilliant.
Ebert was way off. Siskel nailed it.
yes he did
Whatever. Never listened to critics.
This Film is Awesome. I’ve seen it at least 6 times.
Ebert missed on this review. Miller's Crossing is a gem. This was not film making by committee like so much of today's drivel. M.C. was about as close to an art house movie as Hollywood could make.
**spoiler but it’s worth pointing out why Ebert was wrong**
Why did the two other gangsters (Frankie and Tic Tac) not bother to witness or check on Tom walking Bernie out to the woods to murder him, trusting that the sound of the gunfire was sufficient to convince them that Tom indeed killed Bernie? Because Tom told Johnnie and the Dane where Bernie was! Not only that, but Tom went with Frankie and Tic Tac to pick up Bernie from his hotel hideout, and drove all of them to the woods! At that point, Johnnie’s gangsters knew that Tom was willing to give up Bernie to at least them, expressly for the purpose of being killed, and Tom was also a willing accessory to the murder by driving them to the woods. They were careless sure, but it’s totally acceptable storytelling that they would be lazy enough to not bother walking from the road to the woods and back because they trusted Tom to do the job, knowing he was totally ok with *_someone_* killing Bernie. If Ebert considers scenarios like these to be so unrealistic that it bothers him- to the point he’s trying to convince Siskel that Siskel also has a problem with the film- I can’t imagine how many other movies with minor “jeez why did they do that, but ok” scenes got ruined for him by having an unreasonably high standard for characters’ decision making
watched the film for the first time tonight. Completley agree. Once Tom gav up Bernie, all that was left to do was shoot him and swap sides. That they even went back to check for Bernie's dead body cancels out the possibility that they were 'lazy' gangsters. The film's most sublime twist is that we never actually know what Tom's motives for anything beyond paying off his own debts is. At the start he want to 1) pay off his own debt 2) he emoves himself from all people willing to do this for him 3) he gets money out of a man's pocket [to pay back his debt] whilst gaining back the trust of his old boss (he doesn't apologise for cheating with his boss's fiance as a means to go back to the crime world) 4) He *pays his ethical and financial debt* by attending Bernie's funeral and the film ends. *brilliant*.
And later on we see that the Dane best up Frankie and tic tack for NOT going to check if he had actually shot Bernie....and this clown clearly missed that Bernie brought Mink out into the woods and killed him so that there WOULD be a body there. Granted it might have taken me five watchings of the movie to realize all this, but it's a movie you have to use your brain for, not just sit there with your thumb up your ass
Agree they missed the whole point that Tom couldn't kill Bernie himself IMO because he loved Verna. Tom lost his head(which is why he kept losing his hat) over Verna and was ruled by his heart. When he says to Verna "And there's nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat.", his brogue makes it sound suspiciously like 'his heart'. It's deliberate. It what the whole movie is about.
Don't think you needed the spoiler warning. Anyone who hasn't seen the film won't have a clue what any of that meant
Ebert made the same mistake with The Natural. The movie outraged him for a few reasons that I couldn't believe would bother a critic. The first was making the mistake of thinking the movie was about baseball. The second was his disbelief that Roy Hobbs could hit a home run while bleeding out. I was watching that review with my brother and when Ebert was finished I turned to him and said, "Didn't Roger Ebert go to college? Hasn't he read any medieval English literature like the grail stories? I mean, come on! The manager's name is 'Pop Fisher!' Their team is the 'Knights'! Hobbs is the Christ figure that sacrifices everything to save the team, even to the point of being pierced for their transgressions!" Etc. etc. My brother's high opinion of Ebert didn't survive how bad that review was.
This movie required more than one viewing. After you know the characters you see the masterpiece that it is. The dialogue is second to none imo.
One of their best.
This is by far the best Coen Brothers film. Gabriel Byrne should of won a Oscar for this role. And, Ebert was wrong about his view of this film. I know No Country is also a great movie, but this one is a cut above most gangster movies except for the The Godfather and Goodfellas...A perfect script, good direction and actors who where perfect for their roles.
The performances from Byrne,Polito and Turturro are all brilliant. The score,sets, costumes,it all fits The era and Coens idiosyncracies are just so perfect for it,their dialog is qoutable all the way and the whole script is genius. Yeah,this is probably their best movie. It always felt ahead of or out its time and the academy ignoring such great work should be criminal. And PS,I really thought it was Deakins who shot it,its that good but it was actually director Barry sonnenfeld.
For me, this is the most superficial and underwhelming Coen Brothers. No good dark humor, the characters aren't compelling, and the story is too convoluted.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Don't worry. Another Hunger Games or Star Wars in ramping up.
Ebert said the story started wrong because of all the names that were mentioned in the dialogue, people we dont know so we dont feel any relation to them. And that is true..but if you watch Millers Crossing for (lets say) the third time and you already know all those characters..then you realize how brilliant this film actually is
Same with Fargo. It gets better everytime you watch it. And like Millers Crossing, the story of Fargo also started with a lot of detail and names
what about when I watch it the 100th time? I'm almost there.
Well Siskel was right about this one.
Did Ebert think his cheap rhetorical devices would talk Siskel out of liking the movie?
They miss the mark by categorizing this as a gangster movie, and then measuring it by those standards. It's a movie about gangsters, but the sub-genre is noir, especially when it comes to the plot.
When you realize how wrong Ebert often was.
yes he did indeed get it wrong quite a bit and here i was thinking he would love this film.
I agree...though he was an extremely good writer. Gene Siskel's reviews and criticism still stand up for me.
I just watched the Hudsucker Proxy and wow, I ended up loving it! The low Rotten Tomato score from the initial reviews 30 years ago set me up for some low expectations, but damn I though that film was hilarious! I think it often takes a few years for these films to “age” where people then realize how good they are.
He doesn't know about movies, I realized that.
One of the Coen's Brothers underrated gem 💎. Great performances all around especially Finney.
I sought in the theater when it first came out in 1990. I watch it at least twice a year now. One of the most magnificent movies ever made
@@JMARLOWE1972 Ain't no doubt about it.
John Polito
Now go take your flunky and dangle!
@@jonathanrandall4140
Blessed that lovely character actor
My favorite part is Polito’s explanation of the meaning of “ethics.”
Fucking awesome. "Everybody knows who's a friend and who's and enemy." LMAO!!
It's a perfect parody of film noir/gangster: filming and acting techniques in particular, also film noir character and script tropes. And all that on top of very solid script.
Ebert somehow didn't catch any of that and I find that hilarious.
It's one of my favorites. As a dumb 20-year-old when I first rented it, I was confused and unable to keep up. But the film is so incredibly great that in my tenth or fifteenth viewing, I finally got it figured out. Each time I re-watch it I find something new to appreciate. As for the Two goons not checking for the corpse the first time, they paid for it when Eddie Dane beats them up for not doing so.
And remember that Mink is Eddie Dane's boy.
Hmm, I'm not a fan of Miller's Crossing but I've only seen it once. Maybe it's time to revisit it.
@@BULL.173 It is Jack, it is.
I'm like you, and I was about the same age when I first saw it. I didn't really have the capacity for it at 18-19, but, like I recognized with William Faulkner's fiction or with Shakespeare as a child, I knew it was special, and I made a years-long effort to understand it.
It's a stupid question by Ebert. The plausibility has been established because Byrne's character is the one who in the previous scene led them to Bernie.
Ebert was usually right but here he was just dead wrong. Miller's Crossing is in the top 3 Coen films, if not *the* best.
It's my personal favorite of theirs, but it's not a better film than Fargo, which is damn near perfect.
Ebert is givin' Siskel the high hat.
I'm surprised neither mentioned the source material for the plot, Dashiell Hammett's novels Red Harvest and The Glass Key. Both had convoluted plots. In that sense, the film wasn't as original as Siskel said. But the acting and the dialogue in this film was brilliant.
Ebert's review was beyond ridiculous, he's been proven wrong as the film endures as a classic also all the characters come clearly into focus as the movie progresses.
The opening is magnificent the old Irish gangster doesn't know it but he's about to be supplanted as boss of the underworld. One of my all time favorite movies, great characters and the dialogue making this a great film.
How has his subjective opinion been proven “wrong”? I just watched Miller’s Crossing for the first time and I completely agree with Ebert’s criticisms. Personally I think Blood Simple is a far greater film. But I still understand why people love Miller’s Crossing
@@123rockfan Not "wrong": shallow, trite, uninteresting, myopic.
@@naysayer1238 criticising the writing and characters is trite? Those are two rather big components of a film
@@123rockfan Yeah, when you go at it with bizarre nitpicking. The two characters he has a problem with are lazy idiots, as Siskel says, there is nothing wrong with that. To have that (along with childish complaints about the length of things and how not enough is explained to him) be the crux of his argument, that is triteness. He often had to come back and get his reviews right after watching years later because he was so habitually obtuse, yes.
@@naysayer1238 I agree with Ebert that having characters incessantly talk about other characters that we don’t care about or haven’t seen yet in the film is incredibly tedious and frustrating to watch.
I watch this film ALL THE TIME. MAGNIFICENT DIALOGUE AND ACTING
I find it weird that in every Siskel and Ebert review, people always comment “Ebert got it wrong” or “Siskel got it wrong”. How about they just have a different opinion? I’ve come to the realization that a lot of Siskel and Ebert fans aren’t particularly open minded to other people’s subjective opinions
I think it’s more the fact that this was reviewed before the Coens had established their voice in cinema. It easy to overlook films like this at first glance 30 years ago
Looks like Siskel liked it, but Ebert didn't get it. I've seen bits and pieces of it over the years. Now that Criterion has it out I'm going have to sit down and watch it.
Ok, but… you agree that Ebert got it wrong, yes? 😜
Greatest of all the Coen Bros. films.
Yep. And I've seen them all, and loved them all . . . and with the passing of Jon Polito and J. E. Freeman, movies are the poorer.
Ebert didn’t give a bad review. He recommended it. He just liked it more for technical aspects than dramatic aspects. I love it, but I get some of his points.
What points? He is like Rain Man here.
The odd occurrence where I'm on Siskel's side, and Ebert is way off the mark. However, I will say I did not "get" this film the very first time I saw it. It takes a couple viewings to really catch everything, and get a proper understanding for the particular type of dialogue.
Yes, it's written like a play. The dialogue is scintillating. Jon Polito's rants and Byrnes cynical one-liners feel like they come from another cinematic era they are so good.
The best movie by the Cohen brothers. Excellent cast, Gabriel Byrne and Albert Finney are superb in their roles.
Extremely underrated gangster movie, it's right up there with The Godfather and Goodfellas.
I like Goodfellas too, but when I put it against Millers Crossing, it just seems like bombastic prurient trash.
The crispness of the dialogue is what always makes me laugh when watching this movie. The scenes work even if you don't get the comedic elements, but it so much better if you do. This is a fantastic movie. Definitely the most underrated of all the Coen brothers films.
*spoiler alert*
When they go looking for the body in the woods, the body they discover is Mink (Steve Buscemi), killed and placed there by Bernie. Duh.
You find the odd thing in Coen Brothers movies that take some figuring out. I know I do. For example it took me a few watches to understand how the disc ended up on the gym floor in Burn After Reading.
And occasionally you’ll get stuff that isn’t even answered, such as Audrey’s death in Barton Fink.
But the cause of Mink’s death is obvious, practically admitted by Bernie himself, and one of the least confusing things to understand in this film. How Ebert missed that baffles me.
Yeah, yeah.... There are some credibility issues with the convoluted plot but, jesus h christ... This is one of the most entertaining movies ever, and I mean EVER, made. It needs to be seen twice (at least) if only to catch and release the 1920's jargon. It's crazy that Miller's Crossing and Goodfellas came out the same day. Because they both represent the epitome of the gangster film in totally different ways.
I've seen it many times, and it never fails me. The movie has 6 great actors and several really good ones in smaller roles. I don't know if anyone else sees it, but to me, the Gabriel Byrne character's subtly played moral struggle w/ the world he's in has an epic literary dimension I have not seen in many movies.
I think the first 40-50 minutes are mind numbingly boring, but I love the second half
What "credibility issues" are you talking about?
@@123rockfan The first 10 words of your comment were ignorant, but the last phrase was very enlightened.
Curious that the fellas don't realize that Miller's Crossing is (kinda) a remake of The Glass Key. Also they don't mention (or just miss) the love triangle between Mink, The Dane, and Bernie which just complicates the plot further.
They didn't wanna touch the homosexual angle here at all.
My favorite gangster movie ever. I think. Lol
The Danny Boy scene is still my favorite of all time.
That sequence is beautifully scripted and I'll bet it was storyboarded, it just has that flow to it. The hitmen's feet walking upstairs, Leo putting out his cigar and putting his feet in the slippers, all the way to the tommy gun shootout on his front lawn...the way it progresses is genius.
Ebert wanted vera similitude and got a comic book . . . his loss.
Great scene. I saw it as something of a parody of the 1930s gangster films right down to the Tommy gun that never runs out of bullets.
Miller's Crossing is one of the best in the 90s. Period. Full Stop
I love EVERYTHING about this movie....the dialogue, the acting, the sets, the story....everything!
Love the dialogue. One of my favorite Coen movies
@@thenaturalmidsouth9536 IS THIS THE HIGH HAT?!😡.....I'm jes' snook what just fell off the crabboat?!....😤
It's my 2nd favorite movie of all time. It's brilliant, and anyone who says different has simply missed it.
Which is number one?
@@lillapabo8809 'On the Waterfront'.
My jaw dropped when they went to check in the woods later in the film and found a body. Dark comedy with elements of Surrealism. The cyclical nature of the dialogue and storytelling was amazing. An utterly unique gangster movie. I love the Coen bros. If you understand their angle on cinema, you will adore this movie.
I love this film. Why it’s overlooked, God only knows.
Too many people giving it the high hat. They's fancy pants, all of em.
@@tobyhart8515
Don't you smart me!
@@jonathanrandall4140 yeah let's get rotten
I’ve heard because it was released around the same time as Goodfellas, which overshadowed it.
It probably got overlooked because GoodFellas came out the same year
I remember seeing this movie first as a teenager. Had almost no clue what was happening in the story but I really liked it, and in that sense I can understand why Ebert didn't like the movie as much, but when I later rewatched it I realized that (like when I first saw it) you don't really even need to pay attention to the story at all because the atmosphere and dialogue and acting and set pieces are all fantastic. Though when you DO figure out what's happening in the story it really elevates the movie even more.
Of course it doesn't matter. It's like Ebert never saw "The Big Sleep".
A great piece of filmmaking.
I usually prefered Siskel's takes.
Ebert shat on many of my favorite films.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017it's very upsetting to hear someone say they don't like someone you do, isn't it?
I think both of them do make good points, but I think what really sticks out is when Siskel says "it challenges you", which it seems Ebert missed. I also think the movie benefits from multiple viewings, which I think Ebert would have liked it more the second time around.
Woof, Ebert missed hard on this one!
Sometimes Ebert would self-correct after some years had passed. Not sure he did with this one though he should've.
@@ForlornFreddy Lol “self correct”. You realize that film is subjective right? I think Miller’s Crossing is a good film, but quite flawed in some of its writing and execution. However, I would never say that someone who likes everything in this movie is wrong. Contrary, it’s ridiculous to think everyone should like Miller’s Crossing.
@@123rockfan He doesn’t have to like it as much as I do. However, the (somewhat) moronic premise of this show is either a thumbs up or thumbs down review i.e. a tacit endorsement to see or avoid a particular movie. In this case, Ebert doesn’t recommend people see it which is, in my opinion, a disservice to moviegoers who often clamor for originality.
Lmao Ebert was having a bad day. I tend to always be on the side of whoever likes the movie in these arguments. 😂
I adore this movie.
Siskel was right.
my god, Ebert hated Raising Arizona too. That doesn't play well for Ebert all these years later, a big miss. RIP to Roger though, no hate, just a critical disagreement
Hate is a bit overboard. He gives Miller's Crossing three stars in the print review. 🤷♂️
Ive watched this movie at least 4 times and it gets better everytime. I understand its not action packed for some viewers, and i even get lost in the dialogue based on the era. I really hope others give it a couple rewatches.
Ebert was wrong about this movie.
Ebert was wrong more often than he was right. Miller's Crossing is a masterpiece. IMHO it's the finest movie ever made.
An opinion can't be wrong you absolute spastics.
Favorite film of all time. JE Freeman (Eddie Dane) RIP
I just watched it finally. I rather enjoyed it but I do understand the criticism of figuring out whats going on. Coen's make some of my favorite movies but I this definitely highlights some of their more armature work.
And the Dane always knows about the fix.
And what the hell is that supposed to mean?
@@matthewmehegan3475 The Dane is wise to any shenanigans
Me too.
@@dwinterowd Extremely interesting movies sometimes are harder for some people to understand.
“Muss-tudh! The kid likes musstuhd”
Looking back on this review, the Fat One is an idiot, and skinny one is right. Decades later this film is still GENIUS.
great film and good on Ebert for sticking to his guns
Better on Siskel for getting it right.
Ebert is gay
@@brianthornber3319 "getting it right." what an idiotic smug fucking thing to say. There's no getting movies right. you either like it or don't. such a fucking childish dork you are.
@@lionelmessi4953 I agree... maybe saying Ebert is being a bit stubborn which I could see but not everything is for everyone thats god honest truth. there is no such thing as "getting it right" in film thats just a ridiculous statement that Mr.3319 should remove from his brain
I really enjoy this film as well!
Great movie 1990 and 2024
I can’t believe Marcia Gay Harden played a hottie. She’s so different than everyone else she’s played.
I hope Ebert ended up rewatching this movie, there’s too much to take in on a first viewing. I only recently got that the body in the woods was Steve Buscemi character that John Turturro killed. Man this review was sad also the opening monologue is awesome it’s sets up Leo and Casper’s characters right from the beginning
Ebert didn't get it. That's ok. Tik Tak didn't either. . .2 in the Head and one in the heart. Easy Peasey. It was the mink layin with his brains blown out . . . . And the shmatta Kid got the same at the end. . Jesus Tom
Mink is Eddie Dane's boy.
Wow, those glasses were clearly decorative because Ebert was blind as shit here.
Ebert is off base on this one.
Take your flunky, and dangle!!!
I love this film its one of my favourite of their films.
You're a bunch of fancy pants...all of you...
-gasbaro
I've found Ebert is off on a lot of important movies. He gave passes to insipid block-busters but tended to go hard on creative films. He would find something about them that 'bugged' him. This was such a strikingly original film, its hard to imagine him nit-picking it the way he did.
He has openly admitted to using different metrics for blockbuster films, since the goals of the movies are different
@@4zafinc Are you his lawyer ?
@@RileyRampant Yes, if you are the one suing
@@4zafinc So, your 'defense' is that he has 'openly admitted' being inconsistent. Well, case closed. I agree. Also petulant. But he's in his grave now, I hold him in measured esteem - you can go back into the woodwork now.
@@RileyRampant I agree I can rest the case thanks to you. Since it won't even be picked up due to straw man.
Have a nice day
I have not stopped laughing since I first visualized somebody giving the "high hat." 😂😂😂😂
Roger Ebert, who is a real blowhard in this review, couldn't easily slot it into a category, so he dismisses it. I had to watch it a couple of times (okay, 3 or 4) before I got all of the nuances. But never did the film "go on and on and on" until it leached out all pleasure. Quite the reverse! But of course, the two dumbbell assassins didn't go back to check that the guy was really dead. They weren't supposed to be terribly bright. And this failure set up what followed. I wanted to yell at Ebert here. Thank you, Siskel, who got it.
Theyre gangsters. They obviously trusted
Tom to do the job. They weren’t gonna just walk into the middle of the forest and check. 😂 They told Tom to do it because Leo had asked. They weren’t gonna override Leo’s integrity. They also said to Tom. ‘One bullet puts him down and then you put one in his skull’ so Ebert saying ‘They heard 2 gunshots! What does that mean!’ was just ignorant. It’s a pretty air tight screenplay to be honest.
Exactly.
Ebert didn't really like it. He was wrong, as he often was.
Mink, The Dane and Tutturo's character are all gay... I only found that out a few minutes ago.
They talk about that aspect of their lives in only veiled ways, likely the way it would have been spoken about back then. It took me multiple viewings to pick up on it too.
It’s pretty clear that Mink and Bernie are gay, but the Dane? How did you gather that? I’ve seen the movie a few times and haven’t picked up on that.
@@micmackman4444 Mink is Eddie Dane's boy.
@@DixiePokerAce Johnny says that exactly to Leo, but I took that as “Mink is Dane’s son”. Bernie and Mink talk about their relationship trying to keep it as innocent as possible: “We’re *amigos*” or “saving me from my *friends*.” Verna too: “just because he’s different”, referring to Bernie being gay. Everyone is being very subtle. And people often use “boy” to refer to someone’s son: “that’s my boy” or “Mink is Eddie Dane’s boy”. Seems strange in a movie about a time when homosexuality was considered taboo for Johnny to say about his bodyguard directly to Leo, casually but with explicit meaning, ‘Mink is Dane’s gay lover’. Wonder if there were any other hints in the movie about Mink/Dane
@@micmackman4444 The actor was gay in real life 😂 let alone the movie 😂 also not all gays are feminine acting like Vito from the Sopranos or Omar from The Wire
R.I.P Siskel, Ebert and Albert Finney.
And the Shmada
RIP Jon Polito, fantastic character actor!
@@ianbauer4703 Absolutely. He had "ethics". Great in Barton Fink too.
@@ianbauer4703 always put one in the brain
That was a strange review because it didn't seem that they fully understood the plot of the movie it's one of the reasons why I don't really like critics because I think they become lazy and just mail it in so to speak
Roger Ebert missed the boat on this one, just because it can't easily be slotted into a character study. He just didn't get it. But today, it's hailed as a modern classic. The two guys who didn't go check on the murder were a plot device; they were incompetent. They HAD to screw that up, so the plot could unfold.
I think that's why Ebert didn't like it...because it was a plot device. He doesn't like films that insult the intelligence of the audience.
@@larrykramer2761doesnt describe this film at all. not even what plot devices do.
I remember watching this on TV and deciding to go see this movie because 1/ It's a Coen Bros. movie and 2/ Siskel said it was good and I trusted him. And he had just the right answer here to the two guys not checking the body dilemma: the juxtaposition it set up was that the Italian goons were incompetent but Tom was not only smart but extremely competent and capable. Ebert just missed all that.
Haven't seen this movie. Watched the trailer (and this review for nostalgia's sake) because someone mentioned how good it was. I can't judge it. However, if you have a plot hole that makes no sense in order to force a certain circumstance later on, that's generally bad writing.
Hey Ebert, why don't you take your flunkie opinion and dangle. (I usually agree with the guy, but sometimes he's so weirdly wrong. They didn't check for the body first time cuz they knew Tom, thought he'd go through with it. Plus, they're lazy.)
It's a mash-up of Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest and a little bit of The Glass Key...i thoroughly loved this movie, i re-watch it every year.
The reason he gave for not liking this movie is a bit ridiculous; The Godfather does the same thing
They never showed Siskel and Ebert in my country so I don't really know them.
But roger Ebert seems like a big twat and is totally wrong about millers crossing.
Proof that Ebert often didn't know WTF he was talking about and would downrate a movie for being too smart for him.
Yeah this was not one of Ebert's good reviews. There were some real banger movies that he just didn't get. The ones that amaze me the most in how wrong they are would be this one (Miller's Crossing) and his review of The Natural. Ebert thought the movie was about baseball and that's why it didn't work for him. But baseball is just the vehicle the movie uses for a journey to redemption.
YES. The movie was fucking brilliant.
Right. It wasn’t a hard concept to understand Bernie killed Mink and made up his body to look like it was his. Not sure why they had a problem figuring that out lol
@@mikepage29 You, Daniel, Elton, and Darrell fucking nailed it. Good show!
@@mikepage29 They weren't the brightest bulbs.
TV was not a good medium for these two. I remember saving written reviews by Roger Ebert because of their thoughtfulness not just about a particular movie, but of moviegoing as an experience and of life in general. He was an impressive writing critic. As we see here, when having to speak to fit into a time slot he comes across as arrogant. A pity, really.
VERY true. The problem was the FORMAT. Ebert's and Siskel's reviews (Ebert's especially) were very well written and thoughtful and nuanced. The problem with the whole "thumbs up" TV format is that they had less than a minute, really, to "discuss" the movie before rushing into the next one. But when you read their reviews - as said, especially Ebert's, as he was a great writer - they involve much more reasoning. That said, like any critics, they were often very wrong about certain films.
When I first saw this I didn't care for it. Very confusing. Now it's one of my favorite movies. It takes quite a few viewings to appreciate it.
Siskel and Ebert had the same taste in movies as Travis Bickle.
I love the Coen brothers but sometimes they can be too smart for their own good.
This isn't a good example of it. Miller's Crossing is one of their two or three best movies ever.
@@lynnturman8157 Miller's Crossing is probably their most underrated movie. I know the Big Lebowski and Fargo get all the attention, but in terms of script, direction, writing and acting. Miller's Crossing is the top of the game for the Coen Brothers.
@@danielstoddart I agree. Love Miller's Crossing & Big Lebowski. Fargo's okay but is overrated, IMO. Probably my third favorite of theirs is Hudsucker Proxy.
Not quite . . . too smart for Roger Ebert and those who worship the Hunger Games franchise.
Completely agree with Ebert that the first half is frustrating. A lot of characters talking about other characters that we don’t care about. Thankfully though, the movie really picks up, I think the last half is incredible.
The problem for me is that a lot of characters in Miller's Crossing talk about characters that we don't see. I wanted to care about the characters, but the film broke the "show, don't tell" rule. We hear about the characters, but it's very confusing because we don't see them until they're in other scenes. Gabriel Byrne and Albert Finny might talk about 3 different characters, and then Gabriel Byrne goes and meets up when them one by one. And each of these meetups: more talking about characters that are not in the same room. The movie gave me a headache. It's not as bad as Hail, Caesar! but I think it's the Cohn Brothers 2nd worst film. If you want to see a similar gangster film that is much better, just watch Road to Perdition instead.
@@MegaIkedog Two completely different styles of movies. Road to Perdition is a great movie though!
@@49dwalin55 Road to Perdition is a great movie but it's a direct knockoff of MC. No disputing that.
Miller's Crossing is a great film -- which I've seen many times over -- but I do agree with Ebert that there were scenes that could have been shorter.
And it's still my second fav Gabriel Byrne movie...next to Usual Suspects.
Eddie Dane could have been shorter. It's the Coen Bros best film. Closely followed in descending order by: Barton Fink, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men and The Man who wasn't there
@@tobyhart8515 I'd put "Raising Arizona" high on that list too as well as the remake of "True Grit" and most def, "Oh Brother Where Art Thou."
@@tobyhart8515 I nearly started arguing with you about Eddie the Dane til I realised what you meant
@@TheMrRanto I'm glad you let it dangle until it made sense.
PS Eddie Dane is called Bluepoint in the original screenplay.
@@tobyhart8515 Bluepoint? I wonder what the significance of that was. Also, would he like a pillow for his head?
I love Siskel and Ebert but I think the idea that you must be farmiliar with old gangster movies to understand this one isn’t true. I think it’s very complex but it’s not a genre whatever whatever
Ebert doesn't understand dark comedy apparently.
Ebert hated more talented people than himself
I think you might have that problem.
Yep. And that meant he hated a LOT of people.
Very silly. He loved Scorsese.
It's a Great movie 🍿
So the one guy isn’t that smart I guess.
They were both not that smart.
Roger should have worked in an interrogation room lmao
Cant beleave Roger didt lilke this.
He ended up giving it a thumbs up
It aint elves
The pinnacle of their film making. Ripped off from THE GLASS KEY by Dashiel Hammett, but a magnificent film!
It’s funny Ebert says the plot was too messy here.
But with his review of The Big Lebowski he says the plot being messy didn’t matter.
Different movies.
He gave it a thumbs up...just not a 4 star...he is right
The difference being that Miller's Crossing is a crime drama while Lebowski is pure comedy.
This is one of the greatest movies ever made ... and the dialogue is criticised? You can't please everyone, least of all frustrated critics.
While there are some amazing scenes in Miller’s Crossing, I think the movie overall is just pretty good. Your opinion about this being one of the best movies ever made, is definitely the minority. Also, not sure why you’re labeling Ebert as frustrated, simply because he has a different opinion
@@123rockfan Fair enough … I guess I was a bit angsty because I think one of the best things about the Cohen brothers is their ear for language. I think their dialogue is one their strongest points in their film making.
@@123rockfan And re Ebert and frustration, anyone is entitled to their opinions, but I'm always unimpressed by critics being destructive and negative of a work of art they would be never be capable of creating themselves.
@@patrickpaganini ok that’s a ridiculous statement. The argument “you make a better movie then” is really lame. And extremely lazy. I agree with Ebert that the dialogue in the first half is way too expository. If I was a professional critic, it would be completely fair for me to make that criticism. It’s not “destructive”. It’s being a critic who analyzes a piece of work subjectively.
@@123rockfan it’s not lame or lazy. Have a read of some anti critic critics. You could start with the anti musicologist Hans Keller.
Ill take a high hat
Jesus Ebert....
Look sometimes they’d get it wrong. For the “Casino” episode Siskel hated it!
Damn… never seen this before (I used to watch Siskel and Ebert when they were on TV). My problem with Ebert’s review is that he comes off so closed-minded, as if only his opinion matters, even challenging Siskel with whether or not a scene makes sense. Seems to me that Ebert just “didn’t get it.” I’m willing to bet that after the Coens became more renowned by critics, Ebert regretted having this review on record.
Hey, jawboy, it's not THAT complicated . . . if you can think at all. And this movie isn't reality. Liam O'Bannon was knocked off by Al Capone; this is not NY, it's not Chicago, it's Hollywood.
"Don't get me wrong. There is a lot here to admire. Albert Finney is especially good as Leo, the crime boss, and Jon Polito is wonderful as Johnny Caspar, his rival, who keeps talking about "business ethics." One of the most interesting characters in the movie is Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro), a two-timing bookie who pleads for his life in a monologue that he somehow keeps afloat long past any plausible dramatic length.
The pleasures of the film are largely technical. It is likely to be most appreciated by movie lovers who will enjoy its resonance with films of the past. What it doesn't have is a narrative magnet to pull us through -- a story line that makes us really care what happens, aside from the elegant but mechanical manipulations of the plot."
Ebert - October 5, 1990
You need a seeing eye dog?
Ebert would be a huge Michael Bay fan