Miller's Crossing

[TheFilmGeezer]

A ripoff of Hammett's "The Glass Key", "Miller's Crossing" may well be the worst picture ever made.
A completely ludicrous script, terrible performances and a director who couldn't make up his mind if this was a melodrama or a comedy all combine to make this movie impossible to take seriously.

[Daniel M]

Good joke :rotfl:

[the samoan lawyer]

A ripoff of Hammett's "The Glass Key", "Miller's Crossing" may well be the worst picture ever made.
A completely ludicrous script, terrible performances and a director who couldn't make up his mind if this was a melodrama or a comedy all combine to make this movie impossible to take seriously.


http://cdn.videogum.com/files/2012/02/shocked2.gif

[Daniel M]

I'm going to take my time out to reply to the first post actually, because Miller's Crossing is definitely one of the greatest films ever made and a beautiful piece of film making.

First of all, yes it is inspired by "The Glass Key" but it's supposed to be different in many ways from what I hear, and it's not a negative anyway, do you also hate Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars? The idea of one man playing two factions off against each other is a fairly simple and well used one anyway.

Ludicrous script? This is one of the most moronic comments I have ever heard, sorry, I don't normally come across as this annoyed but I really don't understand this comment, this is, no arguments made, one of the most amazing and well written scripts in the history of film. There is no line of dialogue that is not wonderful and important to the film, I could just quote the many great lines but an easier example of the script's brilliance is in the first scene shared with Gabriel Byrne and Steve Buscemi, that at the time doesn't seem to be of much significance but each line is so important to what later is to unfold in the film.

Terrible performances? That also has to be a joke, Gabriel Byrne is fantastic, and John Turturro for me gives one of the best supporting performances of all time, then you have little roles that are fantastic like Albert Finney and Steve Buscemi.

A director? Two directors.

Couldn't decide between a melodrama or comedy? Please. This is clearly a crime drama, it's a ganster film with a beautiful touch added from the Coens, as Richard Corliss describes it: "noir with a touch so light, the film seems to float on the breeze like the Frisbee of a fedora sailing through the forest."

At absolutely no point does the film feel like a comedy, not at all, seriously there is not one scene that makes me think the directors are trying to make this a comedy. Yes some of the scenes/dialogue or funny, but that's what happens with natural and charming conversation, especially when you have the smooth and witty character of Tom Reagan.

[TheFilmGeezer]

Say you're saying Jon Polito's performance was not totally over-the-top bordering on the absurd?
That the dialog was not incredibly stilted and inane?
You are entitled to your opinion, of course but Miller's Crossing is absolute dreck.
"one of the greatest films ever made" is the silliest statement I've ever heard.

[Daniel M]

Say you're saying Jon Polito's performance was not totally over-the-top bordering on the absurd?
That the dialog was not incredibly stilted and inane?
You are entitled to your opinion, of course but Miller's Crossing is absolute dreck.
"one of the greatest films ever made" is the silliest statement I've ever heard.

Jon Polito's performance was also great, his character is supposed to be eccentric, not over the top at all.

Stilted and inane? What do you class as good dialogue? I am sure the majority will agree with me that this is one of the best written films ever.

Here's an extract from Jim Emerson's article on the film:


The gangsters speak in a delicious fantasy tough-guy patois ("What's the rumpus?") that you'd just love to wrap your tongue around. But the clever gangster-movie trappings don't trivialize or obscure the movie's deeper, melancholy (even tragic) resonances -- which are reflected in the wintry/autumnal tones of its color scheme: forest green, overcast grey, black-and-blue, burnished mahogany.Read the whole article here: http://www.cinepad.com/reviews/millersx.htm

And yes it is 100% one of the greatest films ever made, if that's the silliest statement you've ever heard then I don't know why I bother wasting my time talking to you :)

[TheFilmGeezer]

If you think "What's the rumpus?" is good, realistic dialog, the I don't know why I should bother wasting my time talking to you. ;)
I think "Miller's Crossing" is unadulterated crap, you think it's the greatest film ever - clearly there is no common ground here.

[Skepsis93]

If you think "What's the rumpus?" is good, realistic dialog, the I don't know why I should bother wasting my time talking to you. ;)

He never mentioned anything about realism.

[seanc]

In two says we have threads started talking about how terrible Raging Bull and Millers Crossing are. I dont even know this website anymore.

[donniedarko]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4799928593_548d4649e9_o.gif


I think "Miller's Crossing" is unadulterated crap.
Say you're saying Jon Polito's performance was not totally over-the-top bordering on the absurd?
That the dialog was not incredibly stilted and inane?
Miller's Crossing is absolute dreck.
"one of the greatest films ever made" is the silliest statement I've ever heard.
A ripoff of Hammett's "The Glass Key", "Miller's Crossing" may well be the worst picture ever made.
A completely ludicrous script, terrible performances and a director who couldn't make up his mind if this was a melodrama or a comedy all combine to make this movie impossible to take seriously.

[mark f]

I acted crazy when I used to play in my friend's rumpus room 50 years ago. That's what they called the outside playroom we called a den. I'd never heard the word "rumpus" before, at least until I read Where the Wtld Things Are. I thought that line was clever. Film noir always has smart'alecky dialogue, and I thought the film was jam-packed with it. Jon Polito's fixation with ethics is something out of Shakespeare. That's the thing about the movie - it's a legit noir with all kinds of cinematic and literary references. Besides presenting a unique world and characters, it's supremely well-crafted and lots of fun for many film buffs and geezers. :)

[Daniel M]

If you think "What's the rumpus?" is good, realistic dialog, the I don't know why I should bother wasting my time talking to you. ;)
I think "Miller's Crossing" is unadulterated crap, you think it's the greatest film ever - clearly there is no common ground here.

I think it's good, yes, realistic? When watching a film what is realistic? Realistic for a gangster film starring an Irish gangster, yes, 100%, it's delightful. The fantastic think about the film is that the Coen Brothers put their own unique spin on a genre that has many famous films in it already, it's unique but has a fantastic feel.

Next you'll be telling me the dialog in Pulp Fiction is poor and unrealistic. And I really don't understand how someone could find it 'unadulterated crap' to the extent you do, even if you didn't enjoy it, surely you can enjoy the craftsmanship and skill behind it, it's a beautiful film in more ways than one and I don't know how you at least don't like at least one of the many fantastic elements that make up the wonderful picture.

And no, I don't think it's the greatest film ever, but I think it's one of them. Jim Emerson, arguably one of the best critics on the net ranks it his 12th best of all time, I'll paste in some more from his review that basically sums up everything great about the film.

When I wrote the review below in 1990 (which I've reworked a bit here), I said that the Coen brothers' third feature, Miller's Crossing, might be the first great film of the new decade. Eight years later, I don't think it even has any competition as the greatest film of the 90s so far. Movies this rich and complex (in theme, story, visuals, performances), that reveal their insights into the human heart with such exquisite nuance and timing -- well, they just don't come along all that often. First off, the picture is so gorgeous you want to climb into it -- but it's not superfluous beauty; it sets a tone, a mood, that haunts you long before you quite know why. The Coens always create a world with each new film, but for this one they practically came up with a new language, too -- a kind of deliciously snappy hardboiled gangster slang (worthy of Billy Wilder) that you instantly understand and want to adopt, even though it's never existed outside of this movie. One more thing: Every scene in Miller's Crossing is essential so that all the pieces may fall into place in the last shot. But although you might think that the film's crucial moment is the one in the ads -- and the one you see here, the climactic execution at the crossing in the woods -- there's actually a very brief earlier scene (the only appearance of Steve Buscemi as a weasley fellow named Mink, excerpted at right) that off-handedly sets up the entire picture. It seems like a throwaway, a chance encounter as Tom is on his way to meet someone else, but so much information is packed into this brief exchange that the mind boggles in retrospect. In depth of feeling, plotting, character, and texture, Miller's Crossing is the Coens' masterpiece, a movie people will still be watching and loving and studying decades from now.The common ground is what everyone else thinks about the film, and the majority would agree with me or at least appreciate part of the film. And my statement about it being one of the greatest is hardly that silly, two of the highest posting members here also happen to hold it in high regard, Honeykid has is in his top 100 and Mark gives it four stars which would place it around his top 300 (and he's seen almost every film worth seeing), Donniedarko and Linespalsy also give it four stars and they're strict when it comes to rating films from what I have seen.

I am okay when people criticise films, but to attack it and completely disregard everything good about the film and label it 'unadulterated crap' and the 'worst picture ever made' deserves a response like this one. You've just basically criticised it from all angles, direction, acting, plot, dialogue, without substance.

[Deadite]

A ripoff of Hammett's "The Glass Key", "Miller's Crossing" may well be the worst picture ever made.
A completely ludicrous script, terrible performances and a director who couldn't make up his mind if this was a melodrama or a comedy all combine to make this movie impossible to take seriously.

Please don't review movies anymore. :nope: You are perceptually incompetent. :yup:

[TheFilmGeezer]

The common ground is what everyone else thinks about the film, and the majority would agree with me or at least appreciate part of the film.

I don't care what other people think of the film. If everyone in the world were to tell me MC was a great film, I would still think it was crap.
It's called thinking for yourself.

[TheFilmGeezer]

Please don't review movies anymore. :nope: You are perceptually incompetent. :yup:

Great, when you don't have a valid point, go for the ad hominem attack.

[Daniel M]

I think for myself, but when others share the same opinion it's normally a good sign of a film's overall quality. Your attacks on the film don't really have much basis though and I honestly can't comprehend your issues with it :)

[TheFilmGeezer]

I think for myself, but when others share the same opinion it's normally a good sign of a film's overall quality. Your attacks on the film don't really have much basis though and I honestly can't comprehend your issues with it :)
I don't have "issues" with it.
I just think it's a terrible movie with no saving graces.
Why you should take that so personally perplexes me.

[donniedarko]

You start a thread about this and now you're trying to block all discussion on the film by saying stupid **** such as "it's my opinion" or "there's no common ground". You start a thread don't try stopping a discussion, what did you want to happen for everyone just to nod their heads and say ya we agree, this brilliant film is crap.

Well here you go, no need to looks at anything else:
:yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup:

[jiraffejustin]

Miller's Crossing is good for all the reasons everybody else said. What's the rumpus? is funny to me. This movie is a comedy. I don't see much realism in comedies anywhere.

[TheFilmGeezer]

You start a thread about this and now you're trying to block all discussion on the film by saying stupid **** such as "it's my opinion" or "there's no common ground". You start a thread don't try stopping a discussion, what did you want to happen for everyone just to nod their heads and say ya we agree, this brilliant film is crap.

Well here you go, no need to looks at anything else:
:yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup:

I'm not trying to stifle discussion at all and your saying I did is just BS.

[honeykid]

http://www.characterink.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Troll_940px.jpg

I wonder which former member this is?

[Deadite]

Well, you had to know it's a well-liked film. So when you use really strong language and call it terrible, you can't honestly say you didn't expect an equally strong reaction.

[Guaporense]

I think I might watch this someday.

[TheFilmGeezer]

Well, you had to know it's a well-liked film. So when you use really strong language and call it terrible, you can't honestly say you didn't expect an equally strong reaction.

I don't mind a strong reaction but ad hominem attacks are another thing.
My not liking a film is not a personal attack on those who do.
There appears to be a kind of groupthink orthodoxy here.

[Daniel M]

When you start a thread attacking a film with statements such as 'unadulterated crap' and 'worst picture ever made' you are asking for responses, if you weren't expecting a discussion and argument over the film then I'm not sure what you were expecting. I am not taking it personally, where I am willing to accept constructive and well supported criticism of a film, and can understand why some not may like a film, all I can see so far is generic statements like - bad direction, bad acting, unrealistic dialog etc.

[Deadite]

I don't mind a strong reaction but ad hominem attacks are another thing.
My not liking a film is not a personal attack on those who do.
There appears to be a kind of groupthink orthodoxy here.

You obviously took my comment to heart.

There is lots of disagreement here on movies. We are far from groupthinkers, but you can certainly expect a fair number of fans of the film to chime in, especially when your criticism is harsh and not insightful.

A certain amount of "ad hominem" will come into play at times when having heated discussions about film. If your ego is really so fragile, I suggest thinking ahead when attacking a popular film. Otherwise, don't whine about "groupthinking" defenders when you get an equally strong reaction.

There has been much written on why Miller's Crossing is a beloved film. You strike me as not having read or considered any of it. Obviously, you're wrong about the film, but it's futile to argue with your feelings.

[TheFilmGeezer]

Obviously, you're wrong about the film, but it's futile to argue with your feelings.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
The film is a bad film, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Allow me to elucidate.
First off, the film looks like it was filmed in a closet - everything is dark. Some say mood, I say lighting crew incompetent or director blind.
Secondly, the film is entirely too self-conscious, with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink look at us, we're gangsters.
Jon Polito's performance was egregiously hammy. He didn't just chew the scenery, he gobbled it down whole.
Albert Finney was stiff as a board. If you were to tell me he was reading his lines off cues cards, I wouldn't be surprised.
Gabriel Byrne's performance was wooden. Perhaps that's what he intended he character to be. Nonetheless, one would expect some emotional response after say taking a beating or shooting someone.
The script is full of lame, at times inane dialog. "What's the rumpus?", indeed.

[Deadite]

Well. It's clearly florid, larger-than-life, and self-aware, yes. Almost shakespearean in its dialogue and performances, even. Polito's character personifies how its dark humor undercuts the tough guy bravado. It looks gorgeous too, so good luck with your lighting criticism.

I didn't watch with any expectations and quickly got that it wasn't meant to be very realistic. It's a gangster film ode with its own modern sensibility. Criticizing that simply misses the point.

[TheFilmGeezer]

Almost shakespearean in its dialogue and performances, even.

Verily I say, what's the rumpus? :D
Now you must be pulling my leg.

[linespalsy]

filmed in a closet:

http://swoonsandsnarls.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/millers-crossing.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BJ4HxBGz2IM/SNnwe2rzCNI/AAAAAAAAAbE/4QEkAAHwD70/s400/Miller%27s+Crossing+30
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BJ4HxBGz2IM/SNnwxoaGBsI/AAAAAAAAAbU/nFGYVZAua6s/s400/Miller%27s+Crossing+11
http://www.unsungfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/millers-crossing_03.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldbpzzst9Q1qa1xnko1_500.gif

Also worth pointing out "Shakespearean" is not automatically synonymous with "idiomatic Elizabethan".

Seriously though, I don't mind that you think Miller's Crossing sucks*infinitynobacksies. I'm more annoyed with your generic "can't decide if it's X or Y" style argument. You say pistachio, I say pastiche-io. Why exactly should tonal consistency be the default goal? Is inconsistency always a bad thing? If not what are your exceptions? People rarely address these issues when they use this argument -- instead assuming it's self-explanatory -- yet most of them probably do like plenty of movies that aren't just single-mindedly one thing. Maybe you're one of the rare exceptions who really do only like their westerns western-y, their noirs noir-y etc. but without more specific arguments with, like, examples and stuff how can we tell if you're just being contrarian or not?

I'd have these problems even if I assumed you were right that Miller's Crossing is very inconsistent, but that's an open question too. Is "black comedy" so much of a descriptive stretch? I'm not sure what you're referring to as "melodrama" since you seem to think all of the acting is so wooden and that's about as close as you've gotten to actually describing what you saw.

[TheFilmGeezer]

MC fails as a gangster picture, it fails as a black comedy.
It is a bad picture and no amount of commentary will change my mind.
Canby didn't like it. Ebert didn't like it. I didn't like it. Deal with it. :)

[Yoda]

Gabriel Byrne's performance was wooden. Perhaps that's what he intended he character to be. Nonetheless, one would expect some emotional response after say taking a beating or shooting someone.
Er, given the last line of the film, yeah, I'd say this was intentional. And also the entire point of the film.

No sweat if you don't like it, but comments like this are pretty odd.

[linespalsy]

MC fails as a gangster picture, it fails as a black comedy.
It is a bad picture and no amount of commentary will change my mind.
Canby didn't like it. Ebert didn't like it. I didn't like it. Deal with it. :)

Did Ebert and Canby's reviews consist of "TheFilmGeezer didn't like it, deal with it." or did you just come up with a brilliant new method of reviewing movies all on your own?

[Daniel M]

If you think Byrne's performance was wooden and emotionless you have missed the entire point of the film.

At no point do we ever no his intentions, when it comes to where his loyalties lie and what his emotions will make him do, it's not until the very end that his master plan is revealed, we suspect he may be influenced by his love for Verna, but it wasn't so, he's just a cold, calculated man who knew what he was after right from the start.

Ebert gave it 3/4 too, he hardly didn't like it and I don't think he labelled it 'pure unadulterated crap' or 'the worst picture ever'.

[Nostromo87]

anyone is allowed to not like a movie that is generally well-liked, but the discussion tends to work better when the intiator does a better job of expressing themselves..

[TheFilmGeezer]

Er, given the last line of the film, yeah, I'd say this was intentional. And also the entire point of the film.

No sweat if you don't like it, but comments like this are pretty odd.

The point of the picture is that Byrne's character was an emotionless cipher?
Now I'm scratching my head! ;)

[Yoda]

So when Bernie begged for compassion and told Tom to look in his heart, and Tom said "What heart?" and shot him, you didn't take away from that that he maybe didn't have a heart? And that point wasn't driven home when the very last lines of the film were Leo forgiving Tom, and Tom saying he didn't ask for forgiveness?

[Deadite]

Verily I say, what's the rumpus? :D
Now you must be pulling my leg.

Way to totally miss the point. Obviously I didn't mean it was literally Shakespeare. The more you write, the more you reveal to everyone how little thought you put into your analysis.

I'm done with ya. I personally think you're a troll. Here's a little something to send you on your way.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aprosodia

[Pussy Galore]

I didn't like Miller's crossing that much either, but I can see why it's so praised. The ambiance and the characters are unique and the dialogue is great. You can dislike a movie without saying it's an horrible piece of crap.

[Deadite]

So when Bernie begged for compassion and told Tom to look in his heart, and Tom said "What heart?" and shot him, you didn't take away from that that he maybe didn't have a heart? And that point wasn't driven home when the very last lines of the film were Leo forgiving Tom, and Tom saying he didn't ask for forgiveness?

I just re-watched it on NF last night. Still as great as I recalled.

Anyway, to your point, yeah it's clear enough by the end that Tom is one shrewd dude. He's good at working out the angles, and his cynicism bears him out. He's a sad figure because he's good at what he does and the selfishness of other people never lets him down. You know the saying about expecting a person to act according to their nature, so it can be exploited? He's got that down pat.

It's sad because it works. He doesn't kid himself about people's natures or his own. He still was human and at risk himself, though, so it's not like he was a puppet master. He almost died at Miller's Crossing.

[Camo]

De gustibus non est disputandum.
The film is a bad film, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Allow me to elucidate.
First off, the film looks like it was filmed in a closet - everything is dark. Some say mood, I say lighting crew incompetent or director blind.
Secondly, the film is entirely too self-conscious, with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink look at us, we're gangsters.
Jon Polito's performance was egregiously hammy. He didn't just chew the scenery, he gobbled it down whole.
Albert Finney was stiff as a board. If you were to tell me he was reading his lines off cues cards, I wouldn't be surprised.
Gabriel Byrne's performance was wooden. Perhaps that's what he intended he character to be. Nonetheless, one would expect some emotional response after say taking a beating or shooting someone.
The script is full of lame, at times inane dialog. "What's the rumpus?", indeed.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the Coens usually split my opinions either i love them or hate them. Even the ones i don't enjoy like No Country For Old Men, i accept it's a well written and filmed movie. i'd imagine i would feel the same whether i liked Millers Crossing or not. One thing i can say is if one of your worst films is directed by the Coens, then i envy you.

[Deadite]

Did Ebert and Canby's reviews consist of "TheFilmGeezer didn't like it, deal with it." or did you just come up with a brilliant new method of reviewing movies all on your own?

Ebert criticized it as being a bit too elaborate to allow full suspension of disbelief, IIRC. He still gave it a very good score.

In FilmGeezer's reality, that translated to "terrible crap", I suppose. :shrug:

Not that any one critic has the gospel, of course. I enjoyed that dense environment the Coens created in MC. Amusing, for instance, how the police and politicians were portrayed as mere appendages of organized crime. It emphasizes the self-contained nature of the film.

[TheFilmGeezer]

I'm done with ya...

Good, you pathetic attempts to bolster your pitiful self-esteem by launching ad hominem attacks on me were growing rather tiresome.
For a self-proclaimed "Badash Mofo", you really are pretty lame.

[Yoda]

Yeah, except he also made lots of arguments about the film itself. And the failure to respond meaningfully to those is where the ad hominem attacks came from. They're the result of you stating your opinion over and over and not engaging with the more substantive arguments that you keep saying you prefer. If you actually do, there are lots laying around. Have at it. :)

[Deadite]

Good, you pathetic attempts to bolster your pitiful self-esteem by launching ad hominem attacks on me were growing rather tiresome.
For a self-proclaimed "Badash Mofo", you really are pretty lame.

Leave my user title alone, you big meanie! :eek:

[Guaporense]

In two says we have threads started talking about how terrible Raging Bull and Millers Crossing are. I dont even know this website anymore.

Diversity is good.

[Guaporense]

I don't mind a strong reaction but ad hominem attacks are another thing. My not liking a film is not a personal attack on those who do. There appears to be a kind of groupthink orthodoxy here.

That may be true. I think that people who like a movie shouldn't attack another because he/she did not like. The inverse is also true: a person who didn't like a movie shouldn't offend those that like it.

And yes, like every group of people with similar interests this forum has some sacred cows. Pretty much all classics of American cinema are considered sacred cows here (Hitchcock's thrillers, Scorsese's crime movies, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, etc).

[Guaporense]

Yeah, except he also made lots of arguments about the film itself. And the failure to respond meaningfully to those is where the ad hominem attacks came from. They're the result of you stating your opinion over and over and not engaging with the more substantive arguments that you keep saying you prefer. If you actually do, there are lots laying around. Have at it. :)

Does that justify the ad hominem attacks?

[Yoda]

It depends. If someone's being dense or ignoring arguments, there's nothing wrong with saying so. The real problem with ad hominem attacks is when they're excessively vitriolic (Deadite's wasn't; not even close) or if they're used in place of substantive arguments (which they weren't; they came after substantive arguments were ignored).

I'm not even really sure you could call what he said an ad hominem attack; he just cheekily linked to the definition of aprosodia after the guy had more or less ignored several serious attempts to engage him on the issue. It was pretty mild. At this point it mostly seems like it's just being used as an excuse to ignore everything else.

[mark f]

I give lots of low ratings to American Sacred Cows. It depends upon the movie.

[Yoda]

Yeah, it's silly to try to turn this into some sort of martyrdom for disliking popular films. This isn't an example of that. People are asking plenty of thoughtful questions; nobody's being dogpiled for being different.

I happen to think Miller's Crossing is a little overrated, for the record, but I still know a facile opinion when I see one. And not getting a film is pretty different from not liking it.

[Daniel M]

I happen to think Miller's Crossing is a little overrated

Leave this site and don't ever come back you useless piece of ***** :D

[Deadite]

:rotfl:

[Deadite]

That may be true. I think that people who like a movie shouldn't attack another because he/she did not like. The inverse is also true: a person who didn't like a movie shouldn't offend those that like it.

And yes, like every group of people with similar interests this forum has some sacred cows. Pretty much all classics of American cinema are considered sacred cows here (Hitchcock's thrillers, Scorsese's crime movies, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, etc).

It wasn't because he disliked it. It was because his reasons were poorly explained and kind of dumb, and he kept repeating them without really engaging in back-and-forth discussion to elaborate his points.

I'm still not too sure why he hated it quite so much. He just kept retreating while being vague and hostile. Okay, he hated it but falling back on "I hate it because everything in it was terrible, the lighting, the acting, the direction ect." everytime someone addressed his points? Obnoxious and ridiculous.

[BlueLion]

Miller's Crossing is overrated, but it definitely isn't a bad film.

[Lucas]

Yeah i thought the same. It's a well made film all around but it is tad overrated. Still one of the best Gangster flicks ever.

[The Duchess]

Yeah i thought the same. It's a well made film all around but it is tad overrated. Still one of the best Gangster flicks ever.

I agree fully.